Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[toastman]

Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.

Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.

False, Israel declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. the SAME way the Palestinians did.

IF what Israel did was illegal, the U.N would not have recognized her.

"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. The significance of the PNC’s acceptance of partition in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized."

Europeans conquered land in Palestine through force. That is a fact. And, conquering land through force is illegal. What part of that do you not understand.

The Pope gave the Americas to Portugal and Spain. The English Crown chartered colonies in North America. It does not make it legal or right.

When five Arab states attacked Israel, Israel was on the defensive. The land they captured during that war is now part of Israel. It's inside the green line and globally recognized. Israel is also a member of the U.N. Also, the Palestinians recognize that land as being Israel's.The land that Israel declared independence on however was not conquered through force. The Jews practised sovereignty over the land, the SAME WAY THE PALESTINIANS DID OVER THEIR LAND, as I have proved. Declaring independence over land is NOT conquering it. Why can't you understand that ?

So because 5 neighboring countries attacked Israel (???) and lost (???) Israel won land from Palestine?

Do you have a link to that legal theory?

Why are you putting question marks next to facts?

What theory are you talking about ? Israel captured 50% of the land ALLOTTED to the Palestinians following the war.

You have the tendency to ask the most bizarre/ridiculous questions.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the only problem in the Middle East is a lack of States and statism; and ensuring the domestic Tranquillity and security of that free State.

 

[Phoenall]

Has the nation of Palestine ?

I can produce the defined territory allocated to the Jewish National Home by the LoN Mandate for Palestine a legal and binding document.

Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory

PALESTINE



INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.



So there is Israels defined territory

Palestine lies on the western edge...

So there is Israels defined territory

Palestine is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. The rest is Israel. Why is such a simple concept so complicated for you ? Even the Palestinians recognize the rest of the land being Israel.
Every time anyone debates with you, it's like going around in circles You need to understand that just because YOU don't recognize Israel, that doesn't mean Israel is not there. Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states, as I showed you 10 times, have defined territory.
Remember, Tinmore laws DO NOT apply to real life.

Israel refuses to recognize the armistice lines as its borders. Most Palestinians do not recognize those borders. The UN specifically said that they were not to be political or territorial borders.

Why do you consider them to be borders?

What do Armistice lines have to do with anything ??? Israel is defined by internationally recognized boundaries with Jordan (East) and Egypt (West). The border with Lebanon is called the blue line (ceasefire line created in 2000) and the border with Syria is called the purple line (1967). The latter two are armistice lines, but not the ones from 1948.

The armistice lines define the areas called Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

NOPE they define nothing but the armistice lines. The only thing that defines Israel is the mutually agreed borders with Egypt and Jordan. Nothing defines gaza or the west bank as they have no mutually agreed borders with anyone.

If you believe the armistice lines define gaza and the west bank then you are a bigger fool than anyone thought.

 

[Phoenall]

Has the nation of Palestine ?

I can produce the defined territory allocated to the Jewish National Home by the LoN Mandate for Palestine a legal and binding document.

Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory

PALESTINE



INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.



So there is Israels defined territory

Palestine lies on the western edge...

So there is Israels defined territory

Palestine is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. The rest is Israel. Why is such a simple concept so complicated for you ? Even the Palestinians recognize the rest of the land being Israel.
Every time anyone debates with you, it's like going around in circles You need to understand that just because YOU don't recognize Israel, that doesn't mean Israel is not there. Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states, as I showed you 10 times, have defined territory.
Remember, Tinmore laws DO NOT apply to real life.

Israel refuses to recognize the armistice lines as its borders. Most Palestinians do not recognize those borders. The UN specifically said that they were not to be political or territorial borders.

Why do you consider them to be borders?

I don't, but it seems that the arab muslims do as they want the UN to declare their borders to the 1967 lines. The borders I rocognise are those laid down by the LoN in the Mandate.

You are confusing Palestinians with a few oligarchs around Ramallah.

And you are confusing the Mandate for Palestine with the non existent nation of palestine

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. The rest is Israel. Why is such a simple concept so complicated for you ? Even the Palestinians recognize the rest of the land being Israel.
Every time anyone debates with you, it's like going around in circles You need to understand that just because YOU don't recognize Israel, that doesn't mean Israel is not there. Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states, as I showed you 10 times, have defined territory.
Remember, Tinmore laws DO NOT apply to real life.

Israel refuses to recognize the armistice lines as its borders. Most Palestinians do not recognize those borders. The UN specifically said that they were not to be political or territorial borders.

Why do you consider them to be borders?

What do Armistice lines have to do with anything ??? Israel is defined by internationally recognized boundaries with Jordan (East) and Egypt (West). The border with Lebanon is called the blue line (ceasefire line created in 2000) and the border with Syria is called the purple line (1967). The latter two are armistice lines, but not the ones from 1948.

The armistice lines define the areas called Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

Israel is not an 'area' , it's a sovereign state with internationally recognized boundaries AND cease - fire lines. These are facts. You can deny them until next generation, but it won;t change a thing.

Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.

What question ?

 

[Judicial review]

Everybody has a right to defend themselves. It's a Right from God. Now fighting for a cause needs clarification.

 

[Phoenall]

What do Armistice lines have to do with anything ??? Israel is defined by internationally recognized boundaries with Jordan (East) and Egypt (West). The border with Lebanon is called the blue line (ceasefire line created in 2000) and the border with Syria is called the purple line (1967). The latter two are armistice lines, but not the ones from 1948.

The armistice lines define the areas called Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

Israel is not an 'area' , it's a sovereign state with internationally recognized boundaries AND cease - fire lines. These are facts. You can deny them until next generation, but it won;t change a thing.

Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.

What question?

When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?

Que song and dance
3
2
1

Depends on which parts you mean. The bulk on may 14 1948, then a small part in 1949 when they beat the arab armies back. Then in 199/2000 at Oslo they acquired control of parts of the west bank.

Now when did the arab muslims legally acquire the land that they sit on ?


CUE islamomoron propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

Israel is not an 'area' , it's a sovereign state with internationally recognized boundaries AND cease - fire lines. These are facts. You can deny them until next generation, but it won;t change a thing.

Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.

What question?

When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?

Que song and dance
3
2
1

It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?

Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.

Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....

A state needs a defined territory.

Where did Israel get a defined territory?

When it became a full member of the UN, which defined its territory. Since then it has acquired more land through custom and use that was unclaimed by anyone. It later defined its territory when it agreed mutual borders with Egypt and Jordan.

Now when did Palestine define its territory that was not in another nations possession at the time.

 

[Phoenall]

What question?

When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?

Que song and dance
3
2
1

It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?

Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.

Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....

A state needs a defined territory.

Where did Israel get a defined territory?

MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.

Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?

Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.

That is what I have been looking for.

And you have been given the answer many times. The Mandate for Palestine granted the Jews the land as defined for their national home. In much the same way the LoN also granted Syria and trans Jordan the land for their national homes.
So there is your answer and if you don't like it then that is tough because it entered into International Law in 1923.

 

[Phoenall]

Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.

Acquiring land by force has been illegal since the end of WWII. You've been told this several times, why do you still keep stating this nonsense?

You cannot declare sovereignty over land you have no clear title to.

BTW, you country is fucked!

LoN mandate for Palestine 1923 clearly states that the land is granted to the Jews to build their National Home on. This entered into International law in 1923. So they are not acquiring land by force they are reclaiming stolen land by force, as they have clear title to the land under International law.

 

[Phoenall]

It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?

Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.

Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....

A state needs a defined territory.

Where did Israel get a defined territory?

MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.

Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?

Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.

That is what I have been looking for.

Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.

I guess that whenever you create a state you need someplace to put it goes over your head.

And that was taken are of in 1923 when the Mandate for Palestine was written. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that the same laws that apply to Syria and Jordan also apply to Israel

 

[Phoenall]

You have no clue what we are even talking about you demented shmuck. Way to make a fool out of yourself, again. Go back to bed

You said acquiring land and practicing sovereignty are two different issues. I'm saying they are not. One is dependent on the other. You cannot have sovereignty over land you have no clear title to.

So that destroys the Palestinians claims doesn't it as they have no clear title to any land and no soveriegnty

 

[Phoenall]

It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?

Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.

Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....

A state needs a defined territory.

Where did Israel get a defined territory?

MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.

Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?

Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.

That is what I have been looking for.

Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.

Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.

What International law was that and when was it enacted. Lets see if you are honest enough to give a proper answer and show that you are just posting RACIST LIES and islamomorn propaganda.

 

[Phoenall]

Rocco et al:

Notwithstanding the fact that countries acquire territory by conquest, it is illegal. The Europeans that conquered a large part of Palestine and the Russians that conquered Crimea both did so illegally. That's just a fact.

No it is a LIE and you know it, you claim International law and yet refuse to state which International law and when it was enacted. What happened in 1870, 1917 and 1923 under International law is completely different to what happened after 1948 under International law. I note you never complain about Jordans acquisition of land by force in 1949 even though it was against International Law of 1945 that stated acquisition of land by force is illegal. You also forget that the Jews from around the world ( not all were Europeans as many came from Islamic nation in the M.E and Horn of Africa ) were invited to settle on THEIR land by the sovereign land owners who granted them the land under the LoN Mandate for Palestine which became international law in 1923.

See Abdul if you claim International law then you have to cite that International law and the date it was enacted. Not just slip it in and hope that no one calls you on it.

 

[Phoenall]

MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.

Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?

Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.

That is what I have been looking for.

Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.

Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.

False, Israel declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. the SAME way the Palestinians did.

IF what Israel did was illegal, the U.N would not have recognized her.

"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. The significance of the PNC’s acceptance of partition in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized."

Europeans conquered land in Palestine through force. That is a fact. And, conquering land through force is illegal. What part of that do you not understand.

The Pope gave the Americas to Portugal and Spain. The English Crown chartered colonies in North America. It does not make it legal or right.

Lets see if you understand what facts mean then shall we Abdul

When did Europeans conquer the land in Palestine through force ?

When did it become illegal to acquire land through force

What were the Laws at the time of the Pope giving the lands of the Americas to Portugal and Spain

What were the laws at the time the English crown gave out chartered colonies in North America.

So to summarise you are once again trying to impose 2015 laws onto a time when such laws did not exist, making your post RACIST LIES and islamomoron propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.

That is what I have been looking for.

Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.

Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.

False, Israel declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. the SAME way the Palestinians did.

IF what Israel did was illegal, the U.N would not have recognized her.

"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. The significance of the PNC’s acceptance of partition in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized."

Europeans conquered land in Palestine through force. That is a fact. And, conquering land through force is illegal. What part of that do you not understand.

The Pope gave the Americas to Portugal and Spain. The English Crown chartered colonies in North America. It does not make it legal or right.

When five Arab states attacked Israel, Israel was on the defensive. The land they captured during that war is now part of Israel. It's inside the green line and globally recognized. Israel is also a member of the U.N. Also, the Palestinians recognize that land as being Israel's.The land that Israel declared independence on however was not conquered through force. The Jews practised sovereignty over the land, the SAME WAY THE PALESTINIANS DID OVER THEIR LAND, as I have proved. Declaring independence over land is NOT conquering it. Why can't you understand that ?

Because the boiler room girls don't want to understand that and just want to keep plugging their racist lies and islamomoron propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Obviously, you missed this point several times. I've tried to explain it several different ways. And again, in Posting 828, I've tried yet another way. And again --- you go back to this idea of land acquisition --- for civil real-estate and territorial captures. Please go back to Posting #828 and re-read it. If you are unwilling to take my word for it, then I have also given you three more references from three other independent sources on the "Constitutive" and "Declarative" Theory. Neither of which even remotely requires your improper assumption of territorial acquisition (by military conquest or discovery --- of by real-estate acquisition or land transfer). Because, no matter how logical it sounds to you, in my forty years of experience, I've never seen it done that way.

(REFERENCES)

Sovereign state

Member states of the United Nations, all of which are sovereign states, though not all sovereign states are necessarily members
In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2]

The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

Contents​

• • 1 Emergence of states
  • 2 Westphalian sovereignty
  • 3 Recognition
    • 3.1 Constitutive theory
    • 3.2 Declarative theory
    • 3.3 State practice
    • 3.4 De facto and de jure states
• 4 Relationship between state and government
• 5 State extinction
• 6 Ontological status of the state
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 Further reading
• 10 External links

Emergence of states
States came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state".[4] States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe (others being city states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to authority.[5]​

Sovereign state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sovereign state is a state with borders where people live, and where a government makes laws and talks to other sovereign states. The people have to follow the laws that the government makes. Most sovereign states are recognized which means other sovereign states agree that it's really a sovereign state. Being recognized makes it easier for a sovereign state to talk to and make agreements (treaties) with other sovereign states. There are hundreds of recognized sovereign states today - see List of sovereign states.

Contents​

• • 1 What a sovereign state is
  • 2 Constitutive theory of statehood
  • 3 Declarative theory of statehood
  • 4 De facto and de jure states
  • 5 References

What a sovereign state is.
There is no rule to say what exactly makes a state. Usually, the things a state must have are mainly political, not legal.[1] The Czechs and the Poles were seen as separate states during World War I, even though they did not exist as states yet. L.C. Green explained this by saying that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government."[2]

This means that it is up to any state that already exists to treat any other group as a state. This recognition can be direct or implied. When a state does this, it usually means that the group will also be treated as a state for things that happened in the past. It does not need to mean that the state wants to have a diplomaticrelationship with the other group.

Constitutive theory of statehood
Main page: Constitutive theory of statehood
In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act only recognized 39 sovereign states in Europe. Because of this, they said that in future new states would have to be recognized by other states. In practice, this meant recognition by one or more of the most powerful countries.[6]

This constitutive theory was developed in the 19th century to describe what is and is not a state. With this theory, the need to follow international law depends on whether other sovereign governments recognize the group. Because of this, new states could not become part of the international community or be bound by international law immediately, so recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[7]

One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion that happens when some states recognize a new group, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the main people who supported the theory, suggested that it is a state's job to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any set of rules when judging if they should give recognition. Many states may only recognize another state if it will help them.[7]

Declarative theory of statehood
Main page: Montevideo Convention
One of the criteria most commonly used by micronations is the Montevideo Convention. The Montevideo Convention was signed on December 26 1933. The Montevideo Convention has four conditions that a group "should" meet to become a state:​

• • a population that lives there
  • a set piece of land
  • a government
  • the ability to enter into relations with other states

Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster

Article by: William Worster, Universities of The Hague and Missouri-Kansas City (February 2010)

International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the “constitutive” view.​

It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?

Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.

Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....

A state needs a defined territory.

Where did Israel get a defined territory?

MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.

Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?

Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.

That is what I have been looking for.

(COMMENT)

I believe that your mistake in understanding is in the layman's oversimplification of the means by which nations, states and empires are developed. And while I've tried to explain it as simply as I can, it is clear to me that you have been infected by some theory which no support.

Most Respectfully,
R

Obviously, you missed this point several times.​

I am not missing the point. I am already familiar with what you post. It is that your posts are not related to me questions.

I thought my questions were simple enough. I don't understand why you have so much problem with them.

Yet everyone else see's that the answers are related to your questions but you. We don't know why you have so many problems accepting the evidence in the answers that destroy you arguments and point to you being a very mixed up hateful person

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.

What question?

When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?

Que song and dance
3
2
1

It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?

Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.

Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....

A state needs a defined territory.

Where did Israel get a defined territory?

When it became a full member of the UN, which defined its territory. Since then it has acquired more land through custom and use that was unclaimed by anyone. It later defined its territory when it agreed mutual borders with Egypt and Jordan.

Now when did Palestine define its territory that was not in another nations possession at the time.

Palestine has not been part of another nation since 1924.

They personally defined their territory in their DOI in 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?

Que song and dance
3
2
1

It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?

Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.

Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....

A state needs a defined territory.

Where did Israel get a defined territory?

MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.

Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?

Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.

That is what I have been looking for.

And you have been given the answer many times. The Mandate for Palestine granted the Jews the land as defined for their national home. In much the same way the LoN also granted Syria and trans Jordan the land for their national homes.
So there is your answer and if you don't like it then that is tough because it entered into International Law in 1923.

Where does it say that?

Quote the passage.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.

False, Israel declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. the SAME way the Palestinians did.

IF what Israel did was illegal, the U.N would not have recognized her.

"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. The significance of the PNC’s acceptance of partition in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized."

Europeans conquered land in Palestine through force. That is a fact. And, conquering land through force is illegal. What part of that do you not understand.

The Pope gave the Americas to Portugal and Spain. The English Crown chartered colonies in North America. It does not make it legal or right.

When five Arab states attacked Israel, Israel was on the defensive. The land they captured during that war is now part of Israel. It's inside the green line and globally recognized. Israel is also a member of the U.N. Also, the Palestinians recognize that land as being Israel's.The land that Israel declared independence on however was not conquered through force. The Jews practised sovereignty over the land, the SAME WAY THE PALESTINIANS DID OVER THEIR LAND, as I have proved. Declaring independence over land is NOT conquering it. Why can't you understand that ?

So because 5 neighboring countries attacked Israel (???) and lost (???) Israel won land from Palestine?

Do you have a link to that legal theory?

Why are you putting question marks next to facts?

What theory are you talking about ? Israel captured 50% of the land ALLOTTED to the Palestinians following the war.

You have the tendency to ask the most bizarre/ridiculous questions.

Because nobody has proven those so called facts to be true.