Israel continues to demolish the homes built without permits

[Coyote]

Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel ...

I'm heading out for my workout soon and throwing some stew stuff in the crockpot, so I will address the larger post when I get back. But meantime, questions for you:

Is it morally acceptable for Abbas to demand a nation without Israeli nationals?

Again, thought provoking. Here was my initial response...

If Abbas extends the offer of citizenship (and full equality) to all Israeli's who wish to remain, then I think demanding that no Israeli nationals remain is morally acceptable (but not ideal). The reason I say morally acceptable because decades of conflict and distrust as well as armed occupation could need time to simmer down. I would feel the same way if Israel chose to extend citizenship to whichever Palestinians chose to stay, and demanded that the others leave.​

Then, I reread it and reread it. If people own property, forcing them to leave would mean choosing whether to abandon their citizenship or abandoning their property, property, losing their investments and roots, solely because they are foreign nationals. So, while it's understandable given what I said above, I can't say it's morally acceptable.

Is it morally acceptable for Abbas to demand that Israelis not build in areas which are expected to become part of Palestine?

Yes.

In my opinion - NO building by either side should be done in any of the contested area until it's all legally settled. So yes, it's morally acceptable.

 

[Coyote]

If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination.

I think people who are actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel should not be supported in their endeavors.

I think people who are able to participate in Israeli society should be welcomed and supported.

You are the one who has made a point about internally consistent arguments and this one doesn't seem so to me because you keep having to add conditions to your argument. Are you stating that all Arab Israeli citizens are "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel" and that is a reason why Arab Israeli citizens should be discrimminated against?

Ok. Then do you feel it is ok for Palestinians to discriminate against Jews in a future state of Palestine since it they may "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel"?

How is this NOT discrimmination when it is favoring one ethnic group over others solely because of ethnicity of the entire group- not eliminating individuals because of what those individuals may have done.

Keep in mind that overcrowding, lack of permits for expansion etc is a huge problem for Arab Israeli communities and they don't seem to be offered chances at new settlements in Area C.

I saw one quote repeated often, that Arab Israeli's, who make up 20% of the population, occupy only 2.5% of the land. That could be misleading because I don't see where it states whether that is 2.5% of all Israel's occupied land, or all Israel's land period. But if it is true that they only live on 2.5% of Israel's occupied land, then it seems to me that is a pretty big discrepency.

And I think it is utterly ironic that those nations which ethnically cleansed themselves of "undesirable people" simply because of their ethnicity are seen as being morally superior to Israel who decided, at a time when population transfers were relatively acceptable, to act in a morally superior way by welcoming other ethnic groups -- enemy groups -- into their communities and nations. None of this would be under discussion if Israel had actually done what all the other surrounding Muslim Arab nations had done -- rid themselves of the minority "other".

Ok, so you are now insisting that Israel is not discrimminating or should not be criticized of discrimminating against certain ethnic groups because:

1. Other nations did so in prior times (implied - therefore Israel shouldn't be criticized for it). That's the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
2. Because nations USED to do this years, even centuries ago, nations (particularly Israel) should be allowed or not criticized for doing it now.
3. You are making a justification for Israel to commit the same humanitarian crimes (ethnic cleansing) on others that you condemned when they were commited on the Jews who were, in other times and places regarded as "undesirables". For example, you condemn the Palestinians for wanting the settlements out for that reason.

How is this internally consistent???

I find it ironic that Israel is accused of discrimination while Palestinians continue to insist that not a single Israeli (read: Jew) will remain on "their" land.

Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel, no Israeli military presence. If we're going to deal in dishonest quotes - then I'm sure we can dig up the predictable contextless cherry picked quotes from Israeli officials calling for ethnic cleansing etc etc.

I find it ironic that Israel is vilified for discrimination whilst no Jew is permitted to pray on our own holy site because the Muslims find it somehow "offensive" to hear a Jew pray.

And that is a seperate argument - just because a misjustice is occuring here doesn't mean misjustices occuring elsewhere should be ignored or overlooked. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree Jews should be permitted and Muslims must practice greater tolerance. It's a shared holy place.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of supporting discrimination when I provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions supporting BOTH sides of the conflict, whilst you remain silent on the most odious of remarks about Jews on this board. I find it ironic that you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, just like Jews to be sneaky and murderous" and painstakingly researching each and every village brought up on this thread to discover the actual issues for that particular community and providing commentary on it based on the specific situation.

First of all, when it comes to the argument of discrimmination - I'm making the same sort of arguments that you made to me, when we talked about culture and anti-semitism - and that is of internal consistency. What I said was: "If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination." You pointed out to me that if I have to create special categories to exempt Jews from having a unique culture, then that is not a rational argument, and that is anti-semitism. So that made me think about consistency and also to examine my position. Same with the argument on whether it was right to expel the settlers if settlements became part of a Palestinian nation. It forced me to examine my position.

I agree you provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions. I feel likewise about my own positions.

You do remain largely silent on the most odious remarks about Jews and Muslims. Why? I find most of the time it is NOT WORTH IT to engage in rehashing the same old canards and it adds little to the conversation to acknowledge those remarks, in fact it usually derails.
If you are going to get personal on it - why do you ignore the odius remarks made against Palestinians and Muslims?

There can be absolutely no doubt that Arab Muslims will discriminate against Jews in any future additional Arab Muslim state.

Every Arab Muslim state in the region discriminates against them now, why whould one more Arab muslim state be any different ?

And why wouldn't Israel demolish the homes illegally built on Israel soil ? and why isn't everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area Israeli in the first place.

Just because someone would like to have a home somewhere doesn't mean they are going to get one. Hell I'd love to build a place right smack on the rim of the Grand Canyon but that doesn't mean the state or feds would ever allow me to.

That's a good question - why don't they? Why do they provide infrastructure, funding and legal help in the courts to illegal construction?

You still seem to be under the illusion that Israel building west of the Jordan is illegal.

Might I remind you that the mandate is very clear on what land is available for the development of a national Jewish homeland. And that it is the last legally binding instrument concerning the use of this land.

EVERYTHING west of the Jordan within the mandate area.

The Mandate made no promises to Jews or Arabs, nor was it law. I trust Rocco on this one.

 

[Boston1]

I think people who are actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel should not be supported in their endeavors.

I think people who are able to participate in Israeli society should be welcomed and supported.

You are the one who has made a point about internally consistent arguments and this one doesn't seem so to me because you keep having to add conditions to your argument. Are you stating that all Arab Israeli citizens are "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel" and that is a reason why Arab Israeli citizens should be discrimminated against?

Ok. Then do you feel it is ok for Palestinians to discriminate against Jews in a future state of Palestine since it they may "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel"?

How is this NOT discrimmination when it is favoring one ethnic group over others solely because of ethnicity of the entire group- not eliminating individuals because of what those individuals may have done.

Keep in mind that overcrowding, lack of permits for expansion etc is a huge problem for Arab Israeli communities and they don't seem to be offered chances at new settlements in Area C.

I saw one quote repeated often, that Arab Israeli's, who make up 20% of the population, occupy only 2.5% of the land. That could be misleading because I don't see where it states whether that is 2.5% of all Israel's occupied land, or all Israel's land period. But if it is true that they only live on 2.5% of Israel's occupied land, then it seems to me that is a pretty big discrepency.

And I think it is utterly ironic that those nations which ethnically cleansed themselves of "undesirable people" simply because of their ethnicity are seen as being morally superior to Israel who decided, at a time when population transfers were relatively acceptable, to act in a morally superior way by welcoming other ethnic groups -- enemy groups -- into their communities and nations. None of this would be under discussion if Israel had actually done what all the other surrounding Muslim Arab nations had done -- rid themselves of the minority "other".

Ok, so you are now insisting that Israel is not discrimminating or should not be criticized of discrimminating against certain ethnic groups because:

1. Other nations did so in prior times (implied - therefore Israel shouldn't be criticized for it). That's the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
2. Because nations USED to do this years, even centuries ago, nations (particularly Israel) should be allowed or not criticized for doing it now.
3. You are making a justification for Israel to commit the same humanitarian crimes (ethnic cleansing) on others that you condemned when they were commited on the Jews who were, in other times and places regarded as "undesirables". For example, you condemn the Palestinians for wanting the settlements out for that reason.

How is this internally consistent???

I find it ironic that Israel is accused of discrimination while Palestinians continue to insist that not a single Israeli (read: Jew) will remain on "their" land.

Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel, no Israeli military presence. If we're going to deal in dishonest quotes - then I'm sure we can dig up the predictable contextless cherry picked quotes from Israeli officials calling for ethnic cleansing etc etc.

I find it ironic that Israel is vilified for discrimination whilst no Jew is permitted to pray on our own holy site because the Muslims find it somehow "offensive" to hear a Jew pray.

And that is a seperate argument - just because a misjustice is occuring here doesn't mean misjustices occuring elsewhere should be ignored or overlooked. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree Jews should be permitted and Muslims must practice greater tolerance. It's a shared holy place.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of supporting discrimination when I provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions supporting BOTH sides of the conflict, whilst you remain silent on the most odious of remarks about Jews on this board. I find it ironic that you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, just like Jews to be sneaky and murderous" and painstakingly researching each and every village brought up on this thread to discover the actual issues for that particular community and providing commentary on it based on the specific situation.

First of all, when it comes to the argument of discrimmination - I'm making the same sort of arguments that you made to me, when we talked about culture and anti-semitism - and that is of internal consistency. What I said was: "If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination." You pointed out to me that if I have to create special categories to exempt Jews from having a unique culture, then that is not a rational argument, and that is anti-semitism. So that made me think about consistency and also to examine my position. Same with the argument on whether it was right to expel the settlers if settlements became part of a Palestinian nation. It forced me to examine my position.

I agree you provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions. I feel likewise about my own positions.

You do remain largely silent on the most odious remarks about Jews and Muslims. Why? I find most of the time it is NOT WORTH IT to engage in rehashing the same old canards and it adds little to the conversation to acknowledge those remarks, in fact it usually derails.
If you are going to get personal on it - why do you ignore the odius remarks made against Palestinians and Muslims?

There can be absolutely no doubt that Arab Muslims will discriminate against Jews in any future additional Arab Muslim state.

Every Arab Muslim state in the region discriminates against them now, why whould one more Arab muslim state be any different ?

And why wouldn't Israel demolish the homes illegally built on Israel soil ? and why isn't everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area Israeli in the first place.

Just because someone would like to have a home somewhere doesn't mean they are going to get one. Hell I'd love to build a place right smack on the rim of the Grand Canyon but that doesn't mean the state or feds would ever allow me to.

That's a good question - why don't they? Why do they provide infrastructure, funding and legal help in the courts to illegal construction?

You still seem to be under the illusion that Israel building west of the Jordan is illegal.

Might I remind you that the mandate is very clear on what land is available for the development of a national Jewish homeland. And that it is the last legally binding instrument concerning the use of this land.

EVERYTHING west of the Jordan within the mandate area.

The Mandate made no promises to Jews or Arabs, nor was it law. I trust Rocco on this one.

I seem to remember Rocco agreeing numerous times that the mandate did state everything west of the Jordan was intended for the Jewish state. Which means that there can be no occupation and there can be no illegal Israeli building.

Its also the last legally binding legal instrument. So at least from a contract law point of view ( an area of law I'm familiar with ) it represents the preeminent authority on the area in question.

 

[Coyote]

You are the one who has made a point about internally consistent arguments and this one doesn't seem so to me because you keep having to add conditions to your argument. Are you stating that all Arab Israeli citizens are "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel" and that is a reason why Arab Israeli citizens should be discrimminated against?

Ok. Then do you feel it is ok for Palestinians to discriminate against Jews in a future state of Palestine since it they may "actively working with enemy foreign nationals against the interests of Israel"?

How is this NOT discrimmination when it is favoring one ethnic group over others solely because of ethnicity of the entire group- not eliminating individuals because of what those individuals may have done.

Keep in mind that overcrowding, lack of permits for expansion etc is a huge problem for Arab Israeli communities and they don't seem to be offered chances at new settlements in Area C.

I saw one quote repeated often, that Arab Israeli's, who make up 20% of the population, occupy only 2.5% of the land. That could be misleading because I don't see where it states whether that is 2.5% of all Israel's occupied land, or all Israel's land period. But if it is true that they only live on 2.5% of Israel's occupied land, then it seems to me that is a pretty big discrepency.


Ok, so you are now insisting that Israel is not discrimminating or should not be criticized of discrimminating against certain ethnic groups because:

1. Other nations did so in prior times (implied - therefore Israel shouldn't be criticized for it). That's the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
2. Because nations USED to do this years, even centuries ago, nations (particularly Israel) should be allowed or not criticized for doing it now.
3. You are making a justification for Israel to commit the same humanitarian crimes (ethnic cleansing) on others that you condemned when they were commited on the Jews who were, in other times and places regarded as "undesirables". For example, you condemn the Palestinians for wanting the settlements out for that reason.

How is this internally consistent???


Because Abbas did not say a single Jew - he said a single Israeli (national). And that meant no pockets of Israel, no Israeli military presence. If we're going to deal in dishonest quotes - then I'm sure we can dig up the predictable contextless cherry picked quotes from Israeli officials calling for ethnic cleansing etc etc.

And that is a seperate argument - just because a misjustice is occuring here doesn't mean misjustices occuring elsewhere should be ignored or overlooked. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree Jews should be permitted and Muslims must practice greater tolerance. It's a shared holy place.

First of all, when it comes to the argument of discrimmination - I'm making the same sort of arguments that you made to me, when we talked about culture and anti-semitism - and that is of internal consistency. What I said was: "If you feel some classes of citizens should be favored over others in nation building, then that is discrimmination." You pointed out to me that if I have to create special categories to exempt Jews from having a unique culture, then that is not a rational argument, and that is anti-semitism. So that made me think about consistency and also to examine my position. Same with the argument on whether it was right to expel the settlers if settlements became part of a Palestinian nation. It forced me to examine my position.

I agree you provide some of the most nuanced, balanced, fair and respectful positions. I feel likewise about my own positions.

You do remain largely silent on the most odious remarks about Jews and Muslims. Why? I find most of the time it is NOT WORTH IT to engage in rehashing the same old canards and it adds little to the conversation to acknowledge those remarks, in fact it usually derails.
If you are going to get personal on it - why do you ignore the odius remarks made against Palestinians and Muslims?

There can be absolutely no doubt that Arab Muslims will discriminate against Jews in any future additional Arab Muslim state.

Every Arab Muslim state in the region discriminates against them now, why whould one more Arab muslim state be any different ?

And why wouldn't Israel demolish the homes illegally built on Israel soil ? and why isn't everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area Israeli in the first place.

Just because someone would like to have a home somewhere doesn't mean they are going to get one. Hell I'd love to build a place right smack on the rim of the Grand Canyon but that doesn't mean the state or feds would ever allow me to.

That's a good question - why don't they? Why do they provide infrastructure, funding and legal help in the courts to illegal construction?

You still seem to be under the illusion that Israel building west of the Jordan is illegal.

Might I remind you that the mandate is very clear on what land is available for the development of a national Jewish homeland. And that it is the last legally binding instrument concerning the use of this land.

EVERYTHING west of the Jordan within the mandate area.

The Mandate made no promises to Jews or Arabs, nor was it law. I trust Rocco on this one.

I seem to remember Rocco agreeing numerous times that the mandate did state everything west of the Jordan was intended for the Jewish state. Which means that there can be no occupation and there can be no illegal Israeli building.

Its also the last legally binding legal instrument. So at least from a contract law point of view ( an area of law I'm familiar with ) it represents the preeminent authority on the area in question.

I remember him saying it was not legally binding and no promises were made to either Arabs or Jews, and that is partly responsible for the mess it's in today.

 

[Boston1]

There can be absolutely no doubt that Arab Muslims will discriminate against Jews in any future additional Arab Muslim state.

Every Arab Muslim state in the region discriminates against them now, why whould one more Arab muslim state be any different ?

And why wouldn't Israel demolish the homes illegally built on Israel soil ? and why isn't everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area Israeli in the first place.

Just because someone would like to have a home somewhere doesn't mean they are going to get one. Hell I'd love to build a place right smack on the rim of the Grand Canyon but that doesn't mean the state or feds would ever allow me to.

That's a good question - why don't they? Why do they provide infrastructure, funding and legal help in the courts to illegal construction?

You still seem to be under the illusion that Israel building west of the Jordan is illegal.

Might I remind you that the mandate is very clear on what land is available for the development of a national Jewish homeland. And that it is the last legally binding instrument concerning the use of this land.

EVERYTHING west of the Jordan within the mandate area.

The Mandate made no promises to Jews or Arabs, nor was it law. I trust Rocco on this one.

I seem to remember Rocco agreeing numerous times that the mandate did state everything west of the Jordan was intended for the Jewish state. Which means that there can be no occupation and there can be no illegal Israeli building.

Its also the last legally binding legal instrument. So at least from a contract law point of view ( an area of law I'm familiar with ) it represents the preeminent authority on the area in question.

I remember him saying it was not legally binding and no promises were made to either Arabs or Jews, and that is partly responsible for the mess it's in today.

Man, do we ever remember that differently ;--)

I'd admit that no promises where made to the Arab Muslims tho.

 

[Coyote]

That's a good question - why don't they? Why do they provide infrastructure, funding and legal help in the courts to illegal construction?

You still seem to be under the illusion that Israel building west of the Jordan is illegal.

Might I remind you that the mandate is very clear on what land is available for the development of a national Jewish homeland. And that it is the last legally binding instrument concerning the use of this land.

EVERYTHING west of the Jordan within the mandate area.

The Mandate made no promises to Jews or Arabs, nor was it law. I trust Rocco on this one.

I seem to remember Rocco agreeing numerous times that the mandate did state everything west of the Jordan was intended for the Jewish state. Which means that there can be no occupation and there can be no illegal Israeli building.

Its also the last legally binding legal instrument. So at least from a contract law point of view ( an area of law I'm familiar with ) it represents the preeminent authority on the area in question.

I remember him saying it was not legally binding and no promises were made to either Arabs or Jews, and that is partly responsible for the mess it's in today.

Man, do we ever remember that differently ;--)

I'd admit that no promises where made to the Arab Muslims tho.

Or the Jews. It was not legally binding in regards to either.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[Boston1]

You still seem to be under the illusion that Israel building west of the Jordan is illegal.

Might I remind you that the mandate is very clear on what land is available for the development of a national Jewish homeland. And that it is the last legally binding instrument concerning the use of this land.

EVERYTHING west of the Jordan within the mandate area.

The Mandate made no promises to Jews or Arabs, nor was it law. I trust Rocco on this one.

I seem to remember Rocco agreeing numerous times that the mandate did state everything west of the Jordan was intended for the Jewish state. Which means that there can be no occupation and there can be no illegal Israeli building.

Its also the last legally binding legal instrument. So at least from a contract law point of view ( an area of law I'm familiar with ) it represents the preeminent authority on the area in question.

I remember him saying it was not legally binding and no promises were made to either Arabs or Jews, and that is partly responsible for the mess it's in today.

Man, do we ever remember that differently ;--)

I'd admit that no promises where made to the Arab Muslims tho.

Or the Jews. It was not legally binding in regards to either.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Actually it was binding that the mandate area was available to the creation of a Jewish National Homeland. A couple months in a second state was proposed, Jordan. Which leads us to the Jordan Memorandum leaving everything west of the Jordan open to the creation of a Jewish national homeland

What is also specifically mentioned is that its illegal for the mandatory to relinquish lands to any other state. Which kinda puts the kibosh on another Arab state after Jordan.

Its quite clear that the intent was to accept a Jewish state in the area, with no stipulation as to how much of the area it was to encompass.

Didn't happen but the intent was clear.

What did happen was that the mandate expired, the Israeli's declared statehood minus the borders but within the mandated area and that statehood was recognized by virtually all nations including the united nations.

So again without defined borders Israel is again free to set up camp anywhere within the mandate area.

I seriously doubt Rocco said anything to the contrary.

Israel was won by right of conquest NOT un action; and that war continues to this day.

 

[Coyote]

When you posed the question of Palestinians not wanting any of the settlements to remain, you posed that as an issue of discrimmination.

What is the difference between Palestinians not wanting to support hostile foreign nationals and Israeli's not wanting to support hostile foreign nationals?

Actually, I think I posed it as an issue of ethnic cleansing.

In my mind, I'm being fair and reasonable and applying my criteria equally to both sides. When an agreement comes to be negotiated and implemented (let alone before) there should be no ethnic cleansing on either side. (Though, having said that, pragmatically, I think the Jews remaining in a Palestinian State wouldn't survive the week and therefore would encourage ethnic cleansing of Jews from the nascent Palestine. I know, its ugly. And I know I may not be giving the Palestinians enough credit, but there it is).

In the meantime, neither Israel nor Palestine should be obligated to support the interests of the enemy nationals within territory under its jurisdiction. In other words, its perfectly fair for both sides to create facts on the ground to support their own interests. (Though the Palestinians should realize that this gives very distinct advantages to Israel. For this reason I also support holding Israel to a higher standard than Palestinians in only creating facts on the ground in territory it intends to annex. A bit of an honor system, but I think Israel can manage it.)

The charge levied against Israel that it "discriminates" based on ethnicity and that it must not discriminate just doesn't take into consideration any of these political realities. Nor does it consider the same "discrimination" on the other side.

Why does it need to consider the discrimmination on the other side? For example, Pro-Palistinians shouldn't be using the argument of "well the Israeli's do xyz so why shouldn't we" and vice versa.

Israeli citizens are composed of Jews, Arabs etc. When Arab Israeli citizens live in intensely overcrowded conditions - why aren't they allowed to build new communities and outposts in Area C - or are they?

If they aren't, then how is that not discrimination?

 

[Coyote]

Why not give them legal title to the land, or at least treat them the same way Jews are treated when they build on state lands and are legalized. Legalize them, connect them to infrastructure, and redesign Hiran. At least give them the CHOICE.

They have been given the choice. And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you in this particular case. They were moved there by Israel and have been there for 60 years. Israel needs to deal with them.

But let's say we legalize them. Let's say we give them legal title to the land they are using. Let's say we connect them to infrastructure. And let's say we build Hiran around them.

What happens, twenty years from now, when someone wants to build a house or an animal shed without a permit? Do we tear it down or not?

You do exactly what you do with any other illegal structure built without a permit. If they choose to remain and get title to the land, rather than a larger area elsewhere, then that is their choice and they have to live with it.

 

[Coyote]

The Mandate made no promises to Jews or Arabs, nor was it law. I trust Rocco on this one.

I seem to remember Rocco agreeing numerous times that the mandate did state everything west of the Jordan was intended for the Jewish state. Which means that there can be no occupation and there can be no illegal Israeli building.

Its also the last legally binding legal instrument. So at least from a contract law point of view ( an area of law I'm familiar with ) it represents the preeminent authority on the area in question.

I remember him saying it was not legally binding and no promises were made to either Arabs or Jews, and that is partly responsible for the mess it's in today.

Man, do we ever remember that differently ;--)

I'd admit that no promises where made to the Arab Muslims tho.

Or the Jews. It was not legally binding in regards to either.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Actually it was binding that the mandate area was available to the creation of a Jewish National Homeland. A couple months in a second state was proposed, Jordan. Which leads us to the Jordan Memorandum leaving everything west of the Jordan open to the creation of a Jewish national homeland

What is also specifically mentioned is that its illegal for the mandatory to relinquish lands to any other state. Which kinda puts the kibosh on another Arab state after Jordan.

Its quite clear that the intent was to accept a Jewish state in the area, with no stipulation as to how much of the area it was to encompass.

Didn't happen but the intent was clear.

What did happen was that the mandate expired, the Israeli's declared statehood minus the borders but within the mandated area and that statehood was recognized by virtually all nations including the united nations.

So again without defined borders Israel is again free to set up camp anywhere within the mandate area.

I seriously doubt Rocco said anything to the contrary.

Israel was won by right of conquest NOT un action; and that war continues to this day.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Boston1]

I seem to remember Rocco agreeing numerous times that the mandate did state everything west of the Jordan was intended for the Jewish state. Which means that there can be no occupation and there can be no illegal Israeli building.

Its also the last legally binding legal instrument. So at least from a contract law point of view ( an area of law I'm familiar with ) it represents the preeminent authority on the area in question.

I remember him saying it was not legally binding and no promises were made to either Arabs or Jews, and that is partly responsible for the mess it's in today.

Man, do we ever remember that differently ;--)

I'd admit that no promises where made to the Arab Muslims tho.

Or the Jews. It was not legally binding in regards to either.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Actually it was binding that the mandate area was available to the creation of a Jewish National Homeland. A couple months in a second state was proposed, Jordan. Which leads us to the Jordan Memorandum leaving everything west of the Jordan open to the creation of a Jewish national homeland

What is also specifically mentioned is that its illegal for the mandatory to relinquish lands to any other state. Which kinda puts the kibosh on another Arab state after Jordan.

Its quite clear that the intent was to accept a Jewish state in the area, with no stipulation as to how much of the area it was to encompass.

Didn't happen but the intent was clear.

What did happen was that the mandate expired, the Israeli's declared statehood minus the borders but within the mandated area and that statehood was recognized by virtually all nations including the united nations.

So again without defined borders Israel is again free to set up camp anywhere within the mandate area.

I seriously doubt Rocco said anything to the contrary.

Israel was won by right of conquest NOT un action; and that war continues to this day.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

So you refuse to believe the Mandate was ratified on one date and Jordan was declared on a later date ?

Thus making Jordan an offshoot of the mandated area and the 1st of a 2 state solution ?

Getting back on track here the Israeli's once again are screwing up completely by letting the Arabs just build wherever they want. A massive demolition program needs to be carried out fast lest the Arab Muslims cause even more problems than they already do.