Israel does not exist

[Shusha]

I was loathe to begin a new thread on this topic when it came up on another one, because, quite frankly, the claim is so ridiculous it does not deserve discussion, let alone its own thread. However, since it is likely to drive the other thread off-topic...

The claim made on the other thread was that Israel does not exist. The context of this assertion is the vile notion that it is not possible to commit a crime against Israel or Israelis (read: Jews), including war crimes and humanitarian crimes -- thus absolving Arabs of all wrong-doing when Israel (read: Jews) is the target.

It is a perverse and abhorrent corruption of humanitarian law to claim that crimes committed against a certain ethnic group are not crimes. And frankly, anyone in the US experiencing the horror in your country this past week should be ashamed to suggest such a thing.

The criteria for existence as a state, as provided by the claimant are as follows:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Clearly Israel has a permanent population, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states, I am going to assume the claimant has no quarrels with those three, though he is free to correct me if I am wrong. The supposed criteria that Israel is missing is a "defined territory".

I beg to differ. Israel has a clearly defined territory. It has a treaty with Egypt, defining its southern border. It has a treaty with Jordan, defining its eastern border. It has treaties of the Mandate documents defining its northern borders with Lebanon and Syria (with some disputes) which also confirms its eastern and southern borders. And, of course, it has the sea as its western border. Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.

I'm going to point out that a disputed border is NOT cause to dissolve a nation nor to prevent its formation. There are literally dozens and dozens of disputed borders in the world. If a disputed border is the only criteria for "non-existence" then Syria and Lebanon do not exist. Canada does not exist. The US does not exist. Nor any of the dozens of other nations with border disputes.

A "defined territory" is a general term, and not one that depends on uncontested boundaries. It is very easy, in practical terms, to define Israel's sovereign territory.


If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck -- you can be certain its a duck.

And, I'm just going to drop this here:

IF it is true that no crimes can be committed against a peoples if their nation does not exist -- then Israel has committed no crimes against the Arab Palestinians and have absolutely no need to "adhere to international law". Indeed, Israel is free to carry out whatever deeds it likes upon the Arab "Palestinian" people.

 

[Kat]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.

This is a truth that is always ignored. As the citizens of Palestine, the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. As implied above, and the right under international law, the Palestinians are the only ones who can cede land or change borders. Only a treaty with Palestine can cede land or change borders. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements noted that Palestinian land and international borders remained unchanged since 1922.

So, as of 1949 Palestine and its international borders were still intact. Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

 

[Shusha]

You are exactly right. Only a treaty can cede land or change borders. As such, the territory in question is still intact.

Which State (government) has sovereignty over that territory, on behalf of which people? That would be the Israeli government and the "Palestinians" whose rights were recognized by treaty and international law -- the Jewish people.

You can tell that they are the ones with sovereignty over that territory because they are the ones, in point of fact, with the capacity to enter into relations with other states and make treaties with them. And who have a government. And who have a defined territory, as you, yourself, admit above.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are exactly right. Only a treaty can cede land or change borders. As such, the territory in question is still intact.

Which State (government) has sovereignty over that territory, on behalf of which people?

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Look it up.

 

[Shusha]

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

A people and a government and a State can not occupy land they have rights to and legal claim over. There is no occupation, because the only country which exists there is Israel (formerly called the Mandate for Palestine.)

 

[Shusha]

Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

You keep saying "treaties with Palestine" as though one can make a treaty with soil. You can't. States make treaties. Israel, as a State, has made treaties. Since 1948, including the 1949 Armistice Agreements!

You keep acting as though there is another legal entity here. There is not. In 1948/1949 the only entities were Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

A people and a government and a State can not occupy land they have rights to and legal claim over. There is no occupation, because the only country which exists there is Israel (formerly called the Mandate for Palestine.)

The Mandate FOR Palestine was not a place. It was an appointed administration for Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Let's come at this from another direction. Let's pretend that Israel didn't change the name of the nascent state to Israel. Let's say, for the sake of this discussion, the new government decided to keep the name "Palestine". The government of Palestine (the only government of Palestine) made Armistice treaties with Jordan and Egypt in 1949. And peace treaties later. All of those treaties say "Palestine".

This is the only thing that has changed. Would you argue that "Palestine" does not exist?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

You keep saying "treaties with Palestine" as though one can make a treaty with soil. You can't. States make treaties. Israel, as a State, has made treaties. Since 1948, including the 1949 Armistice Agreements!

You keep acting as though there is another legal entity here. There is not. In 1948/1949 the only entities were Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

There is. Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[Boston1]

Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.

This is a truth that is always ignored. As the citizens of Palestine, the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. As implied above, and the right under international law, the Palestinians are the only ones who can cede land or change borders. Only a treaty with Palestine can cede land or change borders. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements noted that Palestinian land and international borders remained unchanged since 1922.

So, as of 1949 Palestine and its international borders were still intact. Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

While it can be shown that Israel is a state it can also be shown that there was NEVER a palestine state. Still isn't. There's a Gaza and there's semi autonomous Arab areas within Israel, but there's clearly no palestine. Partly because theres no such thing as a palestinian people. There's Syrians, Egyptians, so forth in the area, that we now most often call Jordanians but there was never any such thing as palestine or palestinians.

Israel on the other hand is a distinct piece of land with a distinct people speaking a distinct language and enjoying a distinct culture and tribal affiliation.

 

[Boston1]

You are exactly right. Only a treaty can cede land or change borders. As such, the territory in question is still intact.

Which State (government) has sovereignty over that territory, on behalf of which people?

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Look it up.

You're miles off topic. Israel is a sovereign nation. There is NO occupation. Israel sits on land designated by the last enforceable treaty for the creation of a Jewish homeland. Which is exactly what its been used for.

Didn't I have you on ignore Tinman ? How'd you end up in my feed again ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

While it can be shown that Israel is a state it can also be shown that there was NEVER a palestine state.

Can you prove that?

Links?

 

[Shusha]

Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

You keep saying "treaties with Palestine" as though one can make a treaty with soil. You can't. States make treaties. Israel, as a State, has made treaties. Since 1948, including the 1949 Armistice Agreements!

You keep acting as though there is another legal entity here. There is not. In 1948/1949 the only entities were Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

There is. Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne.

You are wrong. Because the Treaty of Lausanne did not fulfill the four criteria you provided. States did not come into being until there was a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other States. (That WAS the entire point of the Mandate!) None of the states actually came into being until they declared independence and fulfilled the four criteria. I DO agree with you that the criteria for a defined territory was established in the Treaty of Lausanne. But Statehood was not.

However, even so, the state of "Palestine" had a government, a defined territory as you describe above, and had the capacity to enter into treaties. It declared independence in 1948. It fulfills all the criteria. Why would it NOT be a State?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel sits on land designated by the last enforceable treaty for the creation of a Jewish homeland.

Which was?

 

[Shusha]

While it can be shown that Israel is a state it can also be shown that there was NEVER a palestine state.

Can you prove that?

Links?

You can't prove a negative.

It would be easy enough for you to prove there were two states in the territory. Just show the Palestine fulfillment of criteria #4. What treaties did "Palestine" enter into in 1948 which demonstrates a capacity to have relations with other states?

 

[Boston1]

You are exactly right. Only a treaty can cede land or change borders. As such, the territory in question is still intact.

Which State (government) has sovereignty over that territory, on behalf of which people?

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Look it up.

You're miles off topic. Israel is a sovereign nation. There is NO occupation. Israel sits on land designated by the last enforceable treaty for the creation of a Jewish homeland. Which is exactly what its been used for.

Didn't I have you on ignore Tinman ? How'd you end up in my feed again ?

 

[Boston1]

Israel sits on land designated by the last enforceable treaty for the creation of a Jewish homeland.

Which was?

This is why you were on ignore. We've been over that a thousand times and you still pretend more than adequate validation to the point has not been offered.

Israel is a sovereign state. its borders are fixed. Right smack where you'd pretend that fictional state of palestine once was.

 

[Shusha]

See, here's the foundation problem with your argument, Tinmore...If you take out the words "Israel" and "Jewish", and replace them with "Palestine" and "Palestinians" all the problems go away. You don't argue against a government of "Palestine" -- even with the exact same parameters and criteria. Indeed you argue vehemently FOR it.

Its not the objective criteria which defines your argument -- its Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

You keep saying "treaties with Palestine" as though one can make a treaty with soil. You can't. States make treaties. Israel, as a State, has made treaties. Since 1948, including the 1949 Armistice Agreements!

You keep acting as though there is another legal entity here. There is not. In 1948/1949 the only entities were Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

There is. Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne.

You are wrong. Because the Treaty of Lausanne did not fulfill the four criteria you provided. States did not come into being until there was a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other States. (That WAS the entire point of the Mandate!) None of the states actually came into being until they declared independence and fulfilled the four criteria. I DO agree with you that the criteria for a defined territory was established in the Treaty of Lausanne. But Statehood was not.

However, even so, the state of "Palestine" had a government, a defined territory as you describe above, and had the capacity to enter into treaties. It declared independence in 1948. It fulfills all the criteria. Why would it NOT be a State?

Britain established a Palestinian government that was separate from the Mandate. Palestine entered agreements in regards to citizenship, nationality, and travel. There was even a trade agreement with the US in 1932.

When Britain left, local Palestinian leaders got together and declared independence in 1948. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states.