Closure of Al-Aqsa mosque for first time by IOF terrorists

[Kruska]

You have yet to provide any legal reasoning for claim by anyone other than the government of Israel which declared independence in 1948. Bring it.

Simply calling out "one-sided" a State of Israel - upon the British Mandate ending, doesn't account for anything LEGAL. Not even with the USA immediately acknowledging it - since it is in violation of the UN Charter pertaining to the principles of self-determination (and it's regulations). the very same problem that effects e.g. Taiwan to this day - at the very same time.

Jordan and the Arab league did not accept this one-sided deceleration - hence the 1948 Arab war. And whilst the Zionist leadership was successful in it's extension of the 1947 territory proposal, around (30%+) - The Jordanians took their share - aka the West-bank bringing the locals under Jordanian rule and citizenship till 1988.

Jordan even officially annexed the West-bank incl. East-Jerusalem in April 1950. While it was generally opposed by the Arab League, this annexation was officially recognized only by a few nations, most notably by the United Kingdom.

IIRC - we already went through this. - about two years ago??

BTW: "SHUSHA" - are you of Jewish-Persian or Armenian/Azerbaijan decent?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

I think he's referencing those Head Zionist Wackos (e.g. Roudy, ShahdagMountains, Pastelli ? and that women who always complains about her negro neighborhood, and anti-semitism, who claim - British Mandated Palestine refers solely to "effective on September 29, 1923" that beheld Transjordan.

Therefore the Jordanians got their share in 1946 when Transjordan became an independent kingdom, hence the rest, ALL belongs solely to the Jews.

Hmm.. didn't you also bring this up??

Anyone who keeps using the term “Zionist” is a lazy sloppy thinker. And deranged.

 

[Kruska]

Anyone who keeps using the term “Zionist” is a lazy sloppy thinker. And deranged.

A Zionist is a person who supports the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, and the existence of a Jewish state (Israel) in their ancestral homeland. - and you don't even have to be Jewish!!!.

Now get lost - You Zionist dolt.
Hasn't your IDF called on you - to operate those Patriot batteries - or you volunteered to invade Lebanon?

All of my IDF and most of my Jewish friends are there now - actively!!

 

[Shusha]

BTW: "SHUSHA" - are you of Jewish-Persian or Armenian/Azerbaijan decent?

I am not. Scottish/Irish on my dad's side and German on my mom's.

 

[Shusha]

Simply calling out "one-sided" a State of Israel - upon the British Mandate ending, doesn't account for anything LEGAL.

Of course it does. The Mandate for Palestine was explicit in its intent of creating a national homeland in Palestine (after Trans-Jordan was legally separated from it according to treaty agreements by the Parties) for the reconstitution of the nation of the Jewish people. Israel, in accordance with that agreement, satisfied the requirements of the Mandate and of the Montevideo Convention, and were the only government to do so. Everything legal and by the book.

What you have failed to demonstrate is the legal reasoning behind your assertion that Trans-Jordan had a rightful claim to territory outside of the territory agreed upon in the treaties between the mandate holder (Great Britain) and the emergent government of Trans-Jordan. I don't think there is such a treaty, nor any legal reasoning to claim the Trans-Jordan had rights outside its treaty territory. Surprise me.

since it is in violation of the UN Charter pertaining to the principles of self-determination (and it's regulations)...

The "principles of self-determination" are universal, yes? They aren't determined by, "well, everyone but the Jews, even if the Jews are explicitly recognized as a people with rights to national self-determination and reconstitution of their nation in legal treaty documents."

 

[ShahdagMountains]

A Zionist is a person who supports the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, and the existence of a Jewish state (Israel) in their ancestral homeland. - and you don't even have to be Jewish!!!.

How long did it take you to work that one out?

I should watch that temper l were you. It might spike your blood pressure.

 

[Kruska]

Of course it does. The Mandate for Palestine was explicit in its intent of creating a national homeland in Palestine (after Trans-Jordan was legally separated from it according to treaty agreements by the Parties) for the reconstitution of the nation of the Jewish people. Israel, in accordance with that agreement, satisfied the requirements of the Mandate and of the Montevideo Convention, and were the only government to do so. Everything legal and by the book.

No, it does not. It is and was in violation of the UN charter "right to self-determination" - since the "rules" and "regulations" pertaining to such a declaration - were not in anyway in place. As I already stated the same issue pertains to Taiwan.

Secondly "only" a homeland for Jews was recognized by the UN, and not a right to an own & sovereign State.

What you have failed to demonstrate is the legal reasoning behind your assertion that Trans-Jordan had a rightful claim to territory outside of the territory agreed upon in the treaties between the mandate holder (Great Britain) and the emergent government of Trans-Jordan. I don't think there is such a treaty, nor any legal reasoning to claim the Trans-Jordan had rights outside its treaty territory. Surprise me.

Jordan had occupied lands that according to the UN Partition Plan had been reserved for non-Jews - so unlike Israel occupying lands attributed to non-Jews, the Jordanians did not occupy any territory that would have been attributed to Jews. Furthermore Jordan did not call out an independent Arab/Palestinian State - but annexed territory that was not meant to be a part of the Jewish homeland. Now the "Jews, Christians, and Arab-Palestinians" living in the West-Bank could have demanded a UN mandated referendum to decide onto their statehood.

The "principles of self-determination" are universal, yes? They aren't determined by, "well, everyone but the Jews, even if the Jews are explicitly recognized as a people with rights to national self-determination and reconstitution of their nation in legal treaty documents."

The principals for a self-determination of a people living on a territory of a "Recognized State" - were those seeking independence are not democratically represented and are subject to a different ethnic, culture or language. Aka you can't simply migrate onto an island and declare an own sovereign state - especially not, if others are already living there.

So in the case of British Mandated Palestine - ALL people (not just Jews) would have needed to form a referendum to decide as to who controls the respective territory and who gets to live where. This was never done - especially not in regards to e.g. Christians and Muslims living in British Mandated Palestine.

I have studied this topic intensively - since I used to be affiliated with two different party-leaderships, that harbored the wish for independence from their present statehood's. Therefore I am aware that one cannot simply walk-up and declare an independent State. - like the Zionist leadership did as in the case of Israel.

Ben Gurion was also well aware of this - so he simply based his fortune onto a military conflict.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

 

[Shusha]

You are reverting to incoherent nonsense again.

No, it does not. It is and was in violation of the UN charter "right to self-determination" - since the "rules" and "regulations" pertaining to such a declaration - were not in anyway in place.

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
Article 1.2
To develop friendly relations among nations: The UN aims to foster relationships based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

Are you trying to convince me that the UN Charter is meant to say, "...the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, except the Jewish peoples."?

Israel was formed in exactly the same ways as all other states were formed at the time. Treaties with the Mandate Parties, adhering to the requirements of the Montevideo Convention, Declaration of Independence, UN recognition.

Secondly "only" a homeland for Jews was recognized by the UN, and not a right to an own & sovereign State.

Ridiculous bullshit.

Jordan had occupied lands that according to the UN Partition Plan had been reserved for non-Jews - so unlike Israel occupying lands attributed to non-Jews, the Jordanians did not occupy any territory that would have been attributed to Jews.

You are not following my claim. We've agreed that the Mandate boundaries were CLEAR and EXACT, yes? Each territory had a distinct and well-demarcated boundary. You even presented a map. I concur. The claim I am making is that NO territory (eventual State) had a legal right to claim territory outside their territorial boundaries. Syria had no legal right to march into Lebanon and take some of their territory. Western Palestine (Israel) had no legal right to claim parts of Trans-Jordan. Jordan had no legal right to claim parts of Western Palestine (Israel).

You are trying to argue that Western Palestine (Israel) was divided by additional boundaries. It was not. UNGA resolutions are non-binding. UNGA resolutions have no legal basis for creating borders, not when accepted, and not especially not when rejected. BUT EVEN if those borders were created (be clear -- they were not), even if Western Palestine (Israel) was divided into two territories by some legal means (be clear - it was not), EVEN STILL Jordan would have no right to claim those territories.

So you still need to show me under what legal circumstance or treaty that Jordan has a claim to territory outside its borders.

The principals for a self-determination of a people living on a territory of a "Recognized State" - were those seeking independence are not democratically represented and are subject to a different ethnic, culture or language. Aka you can't simply migrate onto an island and declare an own sovereign state - especially not, if others are already living there.

There were no "recognized States". The territory was abandoned by the Ottoman Empire and given over to the Mandate for the purpose of self-determination of the peoples who had a claim to self-determination there. One of those peoples were the Jewish people, who originated in that land, and who were living on that land for thousands of years. And the Jewish people didn't just "migrate onto an island and declare an own sovereign state". The Jewish people put forward a claim to some portion of the territory mandated to serve for the self-determination of the peoples there. The Mandate accepted the Jewish claim. No different than accepting the Hashemite claim. You are conflating individuals with collectives. The claims are made by collectives, not by individuals. Even so, I don't see why an Arab migrant from Iraq in 1945 has a greater claim to self-determination on that land than a Jewish migrant from Iraq in 1945 has.

So in the case of British Mandated Palestine - ALL people (not just Jews) would have needed to form a referendum to decide as to who controls the respective territory and who gets to live where.

Referendums were uncommon at the time (not unheard of, but uncommon). They were neither "who controls this territory", nor "who gets to live where". I think you are imagining that citizens of Western Palestine vote for either an Arab government or a Jewish government. Please correct if I am wrong. But referendums were (and still are) secession movements. The people who wish to secede vote on whether to secede or not. I think it is pretty clear by now that the Arabs of Palestine wish to secede from Western Palestine (Israel). Great! Guess what comes next? Negotiation between the existing State and the would-be successor State for things like boundaries, citizenship, freedom of access to shared holy sites, economic agreements, mutual defense agreements, etc, etc. (We both know the problem is not secession.)

 

[Kruska]

You are reverting to incoherent nonsense again.


UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
Article 1.2
To develop friendly relations among nations: The UN aims to foster relationships based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

Are you trying to convince me that the UN Charter is meant to say, "...the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, except the Jewish peoples."?

Israel was formed in exactly the same ways as all other states were formed at the time. Treaties with the Mandate Parties, adhering to the requirements of the Montevideo Convention, Declaration of Independence, UN recognition.

Ridiculous bullshit.

You are not following my claim. We've agreed that the Mandate boundaries were CLEAR and EXACT, yes? Each territory had a distinct and well-demarcated boundary. You even presented a map. I concur. The claim I am making is that NO territory (eventual State) had a legal right to claim territory outside their territorial boundaries. Syria had no legal right to march into Lebanon and take some of their territory. Western Palestine (Israel) had no legal right to claim parts of Trans-Jordan. Jordan had no legal right to claim parts of Western Palestine (Israel).

You are trying to argue that Western Palestine (Israel) was divided by additional boundaries. It was not. UNGA resolutions are non-binding. UNGA resolutions have no legal basis for creating borders, not when accepted, and not especially not when rejected. BUT EVEN if those borders were created (be clear -- they were not), even if Western Palestine (Israel) was divided into two territories by some legal means (be clear - it was not), EVEN STILL Jordan would have no right to claim those territories.

So you still need to show me under what legal circumstance or treaty that Jordan has a claim to territory outside its borders.


There were no "recognized States". The territory was abandoned by the Ottoman Empire and given over to the Mandate for the purpose of self-determination of the peoples who had a claim to self-determination there. One of those peoples were the Jewish people, who originated in that land, and who were living on that land for thousands of years. And the Jewish people didn't just "migrate onto an island and declare an own sovereign state". The Jewish people put forward a claim to some portion of the territory mandated to serve for the self-determination of the peoples there. The Mandate accepted the Jewish claim. No different than accepting the Hashemite claim. You are conflating individuals with collectives. The claims are made by collectives, not by individuals. Even so, I don't see why an Arab migrant from Iraq in 1945 has a greater claim to self-determination on that land than a Jewish migrant from Iraq in 1945 has.

Referendums were uncommon at the time (not unheard of, but uncommon). They were neither "who controls this territory", nor "who gets to live where". I think you are imagining that citizens of Western Palestine vote for either an Arab government or a Jewish government. Please correct if I am wrong. But referendums were (and still are) secession movements. The people who wish to secede vote on whether to secede or not. I think it is pretty clear by now that the Arabs of Palestine wish to secede from Western Palestine (Israel). Great! Guess what comes next? Negotiation between the existing State and the would-be successor State for things like boundaries, citizenship, freedom of access to shared holy sites, economic agreements, mutual defense agreements, etc, etc. (We both know the problem is not secession.)

Blah, blah, blah,.......

You simply choose to ignore the FACT that the one-sided declaration of the State of Israel - was in absolute VIOLATION of the UN charter regulating the "equal rights and self-determination of peoples". So what does the Mandate Power have to do with that process on 14 May 1948? - NOTHING. And a homeland is NOT a sovereign STATE.

See my post #81 & #87.

You are even so "fanatic" (or simply stupid?) as to ignore the FACT - that British Mandated Palestine was not solely populated by Jews - who didn't even hold a majority amongst the people living in Palestine.

AI:
In 1948, on the eve of the establishment of Israel, the Jewish population in Palestine was approximately 650,000, representing about 31% to 33% of the total population. The remaining majority, roughly 1.3 to 1.4 million, were Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Christians.

And out of these 650,000 Jews - more then 500,000 were ILLEGAL European migrants.

So show me that UN resolution, that would have stated - only Jews are allowed to participate in a referendum, that determines the future of the PEOPLES that live in Palestine.

You are repeating your same "nonsensical arguments" of two years ago. Aka you wasted 2 years of educating yourself.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

You are repeating your same "nonsensical arguments" of two years ago. Aka you wasted 2 years of educating yourself.

Says the individual who keeps wasting bandwidth.

 

[Shusha]

You simply choose to ignore the FACT that the one-sided declaration of the State of Israel

All Declarations of Independence are one-sided. It is a State declaring it is independent. That's the point of it. That's what makes it difference from a Treaty or from an Agreement or from a Convention.

- was in absolute VIOLATION of the UN charter regulating the "equal rights and self-determination of peoples".

You fail to back up your words with something concrete other than petulant repetition. Again, no it was not a violation of "equal rights and self-determination". The Arabs got a State and the Jews got a State. In Palestine. Two peoples. Equal. Self-determination.

I think you are arguing that the Jewish people are not eligible for statehood (while screaming equal rights and self-determination of peoples). And yet you can't explain why the Jewish people are not eligible for statehood.

You may also be arguing that the Arabs should have gotten a larger state, or should have gotten two states. And yet you can't explain why they were offered one and turned it down. Not only turned it down, but turned it down and then immediately tried to take it by force.

And you still haven't provided a legal reasoning for why Jordan should have claim to territory outside its legal boundaries.

Make it make sense.

Here. Sigh. Let me help you out.
This is the legal pathway to a third state:
1. Arabs of Western Palestine (Israel) hold a vote to elect a government to represent them.
2. That government negotiates with Israel for secession.
3. That government meets the standards of the Montevideo Convention.
4. Israel and the government sign a Peace Treaty.
5. That government declares independence.

This is the legal pathway to Jordanian expansion:
1. Arabs of Western Palestine (Israel) hold a referendum on coming under Jordanian sovereignty and it passes.
2. Arabs of Western Palestine enter into negotiations with Jordan for Jordanian sovereignty.
3. Jordan enters into negotiations with Israel for territory and other concerns.
4. Arabs of Western Palestine sign an Agreement with Jordan.
5. Jordan and Israel rescind their existing Peace Treaty, and sign a new one.

All this could have happened in 1947. (And it would have been much easier since the Partition Plan, if accepted, would have dealt with most of the negotiate with Israel part.

You are repeating your same "nonsensical arguments" of two years ago. Aka you wasted 2 years of educating yourself.

You have not provided a single sentence of factual, accurate information to me that I didn't already know 15 years ago.

 

[Kruska]

All Declarations of Independence are one-sided. It is a State declaring it is independent. That's the point of it. That's what makes it difference from a Treaty or from an Agreement or from a Convention.

A State doesn't declare independence, since it is already a sovereign nation - you really got no idea as to what you talk about.

The inhabitants (the people) of a specific territory or e.g. a province (VOTE) for independence - e.g. from a State they presently belong to. - So now where is this "specific territory" outlined/cartographed - that would have been solely settled by Jews. ????

E.g.

• the Province of Kosovo (2008): Declared independence from Serbia. It is recognized by over 100 UN members, including the United States, but is not a UN member due to opposition from Russia and China.
• the Province of South Sudan (2011): Declared independence from Sudan after a referendum and a peace deal, gaining immediate recognition and becoming a UN member.
• the Province East Timor (2002): Gained independence after a UN-supervised process following a long occupation from Indonesia.
• the province of Bangladesh (1971): Declared independence from Pakistan, followed by a war, and gained broad international recognition

Now show me that UN resolution, that would have stated - only Jews are allowed to participate in a referendum, that determines the future of the PEOPLES that live in Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

A State doesn't declare independence, since it is already a sovereign nation

You can't be serious. If a state is already a sovereign nation, what is the point of declaring independence? Independence from what?!

The inhabitants (the people) of a specific territory or e.g. a province (VOTE) for independence - from a State they presently belong to.

E.g.

• the Province of Kosovo (2008): Declared independence from Serbia. It is recognized by over 100 UN members, including the United States, but is not a UN member due to opposition from Russia and China.
• the Province of South Sudan (2011): Declared independence from Sudan after a referendum and a peace deal, gaining immediate recognition and becoming a UN member.
• the Province East Timor (2002): Gained independence after a UN-supervised process following a long occupation from Indonesia.
• the province of Bangladesh (1971): Declared independence from Pakistan, followed by a war, and gained broad international recognition

Yes, these are examples of secession. The people who wish to secede vote in a referendum. Only the people who wish to secede vote for secession.

This is not applicable to the Mandate system since new states emerge from dissolved Empires under the system of the Mandate. So. Who were Israel and Jordan declaring independence from? What documents do have to support your claim?

 

[braalian]

In March 2026, Israeli terrorists closed Al-Aqsa Mosque and heavily restricted access to Jerusalem’s Old City for the first time since 1967, citing security concerns related to the ongoing US‑Israeli war on Iran.

IOF terrorists prevented tens of thousands of Muslims from entering Islam’s third holiest site during Ramadan’s final ten nights, a period usually marked by overflowing courtyards and all‑night prayers.

Elderly Jerusalemites who have attended Taraweeh at Al-Aqsa for decades describe this Ramadan as one of the most painful of their lives, saying that praying outside its walls feels like having “something very precious” taken away.

Being turned back at checkpoints, searched, or assaulted simply for trying to reach the mosque has produced deep sadness, but also a sharpened sense of solidarity among Palestinians who now stand shoulder to shoulder in prayer in the surrounding streets.

Foreign ministers of several Arab and Muslim‑majority states have condemned the closure, calling it a flagrant violation of international law and of the historical and legal status quo that guarantees unrestricted access to places of worship.

Their statement reiterates that the entire Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is an exclusively Muslim place of worship and urges the international community to compel Israel, as the occupying power, to reopen the gates and lift access restrictions.

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/a-declaration-of-war-closure-of-al-aqsa-mosque-raises-alarm-during-ramadan/

Across centuries, Al-Aqsa has symbolized a blessed land where prophets lived and preached. Muslims in every region keep Al-Aqsa alive in their sermons and supplications. It was also the first qibla (direction of prayer) for Muslims, which means that, before turning towards the Kaaba, the earliest Muslim community oriented its daily worship toward Jerusalem.

Doesn’t the fact that they let it remain open for almost 60 years disprove your entire premise?

 

[Shusha]

The inhabitants (the people) of a specific territory or e.g. a province

This is what we were discussing two years ago. Specifically, how the borders of a new state are determined. Uti posseditis juris. They are inherited from the previous administrative lines.

 

[Leo123]

Shouldn't such a revered Mosque be in a Muslim country?

 

[Kruska]

You can't be serious. If a state is already a sovereign nation, what is the point of declaring independence? Independence from what?

YOU stated that - not me

Yes, these are examples of secession. The people who wish to secede vote in a referendum. Only the people who wish to secede vote for secession.

This is not applicable to the Mandate system since new states emerge from dissolved Empires under the system of the Mandate. So. Who were Israel and Jordan declaring independence from? What documents do have to support your claim?

Trans-Jordan had forwarded it's demand to be independent in 1946 - and Britain agreed to it. so???

Did Britain declare that a Jewish State was to be founded onto the territory of the British Mandate Palestine - if so show me a map of that "specific" Jewish territory. There is NONE - since Britain NEVER pursued such a demand. They only forwarded that the Jews have a right to a Jewish-Homeland "somewhere" in Palestine. Aka an empty promise.

The Promise: It included a promise to use their best endeavors to achieve this, while also stating that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". And FYI - even that UN Partition Plan from 1947 was NEVER accredited/passed by the UNSC. !!!

Now show me that UN resolution, that would have stated - only Jews are allowed to participate in a referendum, that determines the future of the PEOPLES that live in Palestine.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

the future of the PEOPLES that live in Palestine.

Where is that place?

 

[Kruska]

Doesn’t the fact that they let it remain open for almost 60 years disprove your entire premise?

They didn't - they restricted it multiple times.

Restrictions on Palestinian worshippers at the site have continued, while Israeli groups have been allowed to enter the compound at times, leading to tensions and clashes.