Delegitimising Israel: Nobody does it better than the Israelis themselves

[Hollie]

176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle

Well, actually, from your link:

(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." (article 2) considered together with the obligation to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions" arid "encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" (article 6).


So, as we see, the Mandate provided for establishment of the Jewish National Home and immigration of the Jewish people was intended to facilitate that.

In your Jew-hating universe, you just can't accept the intent and facilitation of Jews reclaiming their ancestral homeland after the Islamist Entity™ had all but purged existence of the Jewish heritage from muhammudan'istan.

 

[montelatici]

How can it be legal to remove the native inhabitants to make room for European Jews? Since most of the ancestors of the native inhabitants once practiced Judaism how was it moral to remove them to make room for Europeans?

 

[Phoenall]

The part left out is that the Security Council never implemented the plan.

Which is a LIE as you have been shown they did, just as you have been shown that the resolution did not need arab acceptance to proceed

That is neither here nor there. The non binding General Assembly resolution recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not.

WRONG the security council does not have that authority so whoever told you that knew they were talking to a gullible fool. The UN recommended that the Jewish national home be partitioned, it did not declare it to be partioned. The Jews used the resolution to bring about the formation of the Jewish national home thus fulfilling the terms of the resolution, the security council then signed of on the resolution as being successful.

REMEMBER IT DID NOT NEED BOTH PARTIES TO AGREE TO THE TERMS JUST ONE, SO THE ARAB MUSLIMS LOST OUT AGAIN.


How about a link to your claim that " The non binding General Assembly resolution recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine." I would like to see what the latest lies are going the rounds on the hate sites

 

[Phoenall]

The Jewish Virtual Library is not an objective source, for obvious reasons.

1. The UN admitted in the partition plan A/354, linked below, that the creation of a Jewish National Home ran counter to the Charter of the LON with respect to the principle of self-determination of the inhabitants of Palestine.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

​

2. There was little to no Arab immigration to Palestine.

General Assembly

A/364

3 September 1947

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SUPPLEMENT No. 11

UNITED NATIONS

SPECIAL COMMITTEE

ON PALESTINE

REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1

Lake Success

New York

Chapter 2.​

"(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural

increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main

to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into

Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not

been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years

(there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and

1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931

and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to

nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births

over deaths.

A/364 of 3 September 1947

3. The correct population breakdown from the same UN document linked above. In fact, with the bedouins, the Jewish state was virtually 50/50 Jews to Non-Jews.


View attachment 101783


So, the partition would have resulted in nearly 500 thousand non-Jews, equal in number to the Jews at the time of partition, to be ruled by Jews in perpetuity. And your Jewish Virtual Library complained of the 100,000 Jews that would have remained separated from fellow Jews in the International sector of Jerusalem. It did not occur to them that the 500 million non-Jews in the Jewish sector would be separated from their fellow non-Jews?

Demographics once again showing the arab muslims are cowards, as your post says 500 million arab muslims against 500 thousand Jews and they still cant overcome them. And this was in 1947 when the Jews had single shot rifles, hand guns, shotguns and tractors

 

[Phoenall]

How can it be legal to remove the native inhabitants to make room for European Jews? Since most of the ancestors of the native inhabitants once practiced Judaism how was it moral to remove them to make room for Europeans?

Different laws in place at that time, just as the laws when Catholics stole South America and other lands allowed them to do so

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

While America stifles free speech, Ireland opens up the debate on Israel’s legitimacy and exceptionalism

The laugh is that Israel does a splendid job of delegitimising itself without any outside help. In the wake of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan, which granted the Jews territory within defined borders, they declared statehood in 1948 without borders, grabbing as much extra land as they could by armed terror and ethnic cleansing. The new state of Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949 was conditional upon honouring the UN Charter and implementing UN General Assembly Resolutions 181 and 194. It failed to do so and to this day repeatedly violates provisions and principles of the charter.

Israel even fails to comply with the provisions of the European Union-Israel Association Agreement of 1995 which requires adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and states that “respect for human rights and democratic principle constitute an essential element of this agreement”, in return for trading privileges. It gets the privileges without delivering on the obligations.

In 2004 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague ruled that construction of what’s often referred to as the Apartheid Wall breaches international law and Israel must dismantle it and make reparation. Israel nevertheless continues building its hideous wall with American tax dollars. The ICJ also ruled that

all states are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.
Delegitimising Israel: Nobody does it better than the Israelis themselves

Israel and it's little helper's

Lol. With the US still considering Israel not only legitimate, but an ally, the Hague and the UN don't have any means of enforcing their legal opinions on whether or not Israel should be. They might as well try waving their magic wands in Jerusalem's general direction and yelling, "Israelus Disappearus!"

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

How can it be legal to remove the native inhabitants to make room for European Jews? Since most of the ancestors of the native inhabitants once practiced Judaism how was it moral to remove them to make room for Europeans?

Moral? LMFAO! Which nation exists today that conquered its territory by "moral" means?

 

[Eloy]

It is of interest that the American government's definition of antisemitism in the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act includes criticism of Israel. This does not form part of the definition recognized by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and which is accepted by the British prime minister.
Britain to adopt new antisemitism definition
It has to be acknowledged that American politicians are reliably expected to defend Israel's policies and conduct, seeing no distinction between Jews and the Jewish state.

 

[Eloy]

How can it be legal to remove the native inhabitants to make room for European Jews? Since most of the ancestors of the native inhabitants once practiced Judaism how was it moral to remove them to make room for Europeans?

Moral? LMFAO! Which nation exists today that conquered its territory by "moral" means?

Not all nations "conquered" their own territory.

 

[Hollie]

How can it be legal to remove the native inhabitants to make room for European Jews? Since most of the ancestors of the native inhabitants once practiced Judaism how was it moral to remove them to make room for Europeans?

What "native inhabitants" were removed? As we know from the official Ottoman land records, the majority land owners were absentee owners in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

 

[Phoenall]

It is of interest that the American government's definition of antisemitism in the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act includes criticism of Israel. This does not form part of the definition recognized by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and which is accepted by the British prime minister.
Britain to adopt new antisemitism definition
It has to be acknowledged that American politicians are reliably expected to defend Israel's policies and conduct, seeing no distinction between Jews and the Jewish state.

Why should it, it is up to the US lawmakers what their laws say not some group with no legal power. The UK has used the IHRA as a basis for the change in the laws wording

 

[Phoenall]

How can it be legal to remove the native inhabitants to make room for European Jews? Since most of the ancestors of the native inhabitants once practiced Judaism how was it moral to remove them to make room for Europeans?

Moral? LMFAO! Which nation exists today that conquered its territory by "moral" means?

Not all nations "conquered" their own territory.

Name one that didnt ?

 

[rhodescholar]

It has to be acknowledged that American politicians are reliably expected to defend Israel's policies and conduct, seeing no distinction between Jews and the Jewish state.

Nor should there be. Arab muslims mass deported all jews from their countries because they were jewish, and muslims around the world attack jews because they are jewish. There is only one jewish state, and 57 muslims ones. When I see the level of requirements and spotlight focused on arab muslim / muslim countries as Israel is held it, THEN I might be willing to discuss Israel's behavior, which morally VASTLY exceeds that of any muslim country.

 

[Eloy]

It has to be acknowledged that American politicians are reliably expected to defend Israel's policies and conduct, seeing no distinction between Jews and the Jewish state.

Nor should there be. Arab muslims mass deported all jews from their countries because they were jewish, and muslims around the world attack jews because they are jewish. There is only one jewish state, and 57 muslims ones. When I see the level of requirements and spotlight focused on arab muslim / muslim countries as Israel is held it, THEN I might be willing to discuss Israel's behavior, which morally VASTLY exceeds that of any muslim country.

A country which does not allow criticism cannot learn or be a democracy.

 

[rhodescholar]

A country which does not allow criticism cannot learn or be a democracy.

Show me one arab muslim country that has a free press, or civil/human rights.

 

[Eloy]

A country which does not allow criticism cannot learn or be a democracy.

Show me one arab muslim country that has a free press, or civil/human rights.

Not one Arab country is a democracy as far as I know but the topic of this thread is Israel.

 

[montelatici]

Lebanon is about as democratic as Israel. Like Israel, they also do not allow a large number of Palestinians under their control to vote. But there are only 450,000 in Lebanon while in Israel there are about 4 million under Israeli control.

 

[Phoenall]

It has to be acknowledged that American politicians are reliably expected to defend Israel's policies and conduct, seeing no distinction between Jews and the Jewish state.

Nor should there be. Arab muslims mass deported all jews from their countries because they were jewish, and muslims around the world attack jews because they are jewish. There is only one jewish state, and 57 muslims ones. When I see the level of requirements and spotlight focused on arab muslim / muslim countries as Israel is held it, THEN I might be willing to discuss Israel's behavior, which morally VASTLY exceeds that of any muslim country.

A country which does not allow criticism cannot learn or be a democracy.

That sums up every islamonazi nation

 

[rhodescholar]

A country which does not allow criticism cannot learn or be a democracy.

Show me one arab muslim country that has a free press, or civil/human rights.

Not one Arab country is a democracy as far as I know but the topic of this thread is Israel.

The topic is always Israel, even when it isn't. Without context, there is no conversation. When the arab muslim countries get a free press, protect minorities, women and provide basic civil rights, THEN we can talk about Israel's quality of life.

 

[Eloy]

It has to be acknowledged that American politicians are reliably expected to defend Israel's policies and conduct, seeing no distinction between Jews and the Jewish state.

Nor should there be. Arab muslims mass deported all jews from their countries because they were jewish, and muslims around the world attack jews because they are jewish. There is only one jewish state, and 57 muslims ones. When I see the level of requirements and spotlight focused on arab muslim / muslim countries as Israel is held it, THEN I might be willing to discuss Israel's behavior, which morally VASTLY exceeds that of any muslim country.

Israel's conduct with the Palestinians blackens its name throughout the world.