Israel violates international law

[Sweet_Caroline]

Please read this about the San Remo Mandate which protects Jewish rights to the land and countries' obligations to encourage Jewish settlement.

Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights

From your link:

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.

The mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

As citizens of Palestine, they could live anywhere in Palestine that they wish.

The current constitution of Palestine says the same thing.

What is the constitution of Palestine? Give me a link.

 

[Victory67]

Are you not aware that the UN has to honor the obligations from the Mandate which you would have seen when you saw the video, with proof of that fact. And of course Israel gives the arabs full rights if they are citizens of Israel, but if not then of course they do not have the rights of the arab Israeli citizens.

P.S. I still can't get over how apt your username is!

Where does the Balfour Declaration, San Remo Conference, and Mandate for Palestine state that the rights of non-Jews in Palestine can be violated if they are not citizens of the Jewish homeland created in Palestine?

They say nothing of the sort. These three documents, which you hold to be perpetual international law, clearly state that the civil and religious rights of non-Jews in Palestine must be protected. Why are you ignoring this when the rest of the world can clearly see it in plain English?

How do you think such an attitude reflects upon Israel and affects international views of the Israeli position?

 

[Phoenall]

Hahahaha.. actually Nasser was calling for discussion and negotiations..

Falsifying history goes back thousands of years for you all.

That's like the pot painting the kettle black.

Where were you in 1967?

At school learning modern history as it happened. This included the 6 day war and the lead up to it. Consider that Egypt had blocked the passage of Israeli registered vessels through the straits of tiran, mobilised its forces along the Israeli border and evicted the UN peace keeping force from the Sinai then they were itching for a fight, so Israel jumped in with a pre-emptive strike against the muslims rather than wait for them to attack.

 

[Phoenall]

Hahahaha.. actually Nasser was calling for discussion and negotiations..

Falsifying history goes back thousands of years for you all.

Are you saying Israel would have attacked Jordan had they NOT entered the war ?

Israel wanted the land so they could trade it back for PEACE

They offered the Sinai to Egypt for peace and Recognition of Israel following the 6 day war but Egypt refused(they later made a peace deal in 1979)

They offered the Golan back to Syria, but instead, Syria signed the Khartoum resolution which said: No peace with Israel and no recognition of Israel.

Israel simply wanted to provoke a war.. Read Moshe Dayan.

Remember that the Suez Canal was out of commission for 6-7 years.

Were you born yesterday?

The Israelis stole all sorts of equipment in Sinai that was own by Belgium.

You will never have peace if you continue to lie your ass off.

The muslims just wanted to prove they were devout followers of islam and wipe out the Jews
Read the Koran and look at the words of the president of Egypt prior to the attack by Israel.

This is why islam has never know peace since it was invented in 627 c.e.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Are you not aware that the UN has to honor the obligations from the Mandate which you would have seen when you saw the video, with proof of that fact. And of course Israel gives the arabs full rights if they are citizens of Israel, but if not then of course they do not have the rights of the arab Israeli citizens.

P.S. I still can't get over how apt your username is!

Where does the Balfour Declaration, San Remo Conference, and Mandate for Palestine state that the rights of non-Jews in Palestine can be violated if they are not citizens of the Jewish homeland created in Palestine?

They say nothing of the sort. These three documents, which you hold to be perpetual international law, clearly state that the civil and religious rights of non-Jews in Palestine must be protected. Why are you ignoring this when the rest of the world can clearly see it in plain English?

How do you think such an attitude reflects upon Israel and affects international views of the Israeli position?

It doesn't say they can be violated, and they are not, but Israel is legally Jewish land. Non citizens of countries do not have the rights that citizens do.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, et al,

Annexation is the permanent acquisition and incorporation of a territory into a new/different nation. Once annexed, the territory become part of that country.

What are the rules on annexed land being transferred to another nation, does the ownership pass on or does it stay with the original nation that annexed the land.

(COMMENT)

Annexation does not effect property ownership.

I live in Ohio. I own my property. If the US sells Ohio to Canada, I change citizenship, I will Pay taxes to Ottawa, I will be a Canadian and not American, and I will follow Canadian Law. But it doesn't effect my property. I still own the land. The only thing different about the land is that it is now defended by Canada, and not the US. The international border would be extended out to encompass Ohio. But I still own my little patch of land and the house.

Sovereignty doesn't effect property ownership.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course if Canada came down with guns, took over Ohio, and ran you off to Pennsylvania you would favor the right to return that you oppose now.

This does not address the right to country that exists irrespective of land ownership. It is said (constantly) that the Palestinians have no right to Palestine because they did not own land-that it was leased.

Does this mean that people who live in...say...New York City who lease apartments have no right to the US because they don't own any land.

Does this mean that the Jews have no rights and no right of return. Because from here it looks like you are wanting to implement a two tier system with the Jews getting no rights at all.

 

[Phoenall]

Calling for Israel to pull out of the West Bank is illegal according to International Law.

It has been a few weeks since I posted this but considering we have some rather uninformed people on this forum it would be worthwhile them getting educated.

Howard Grief - EC4I middle east conflict documentary: Give Peace A Chance - YouTube

And it is just as big of a lie as it was then.

You can of course show were this is a LIE, like we showed your muslim source was LYING about Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Please read this about the San Remo Mandate which protects Jewish rights to the land and countries' obligations to encourage Jewish settlement.

Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights

From your link:

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.

The mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

As citizens of Palestine, they could live anywhere in Palestine that they wish.

The current constitution of Palestine says the same thing.

What is the constitution of Palestine? Give me a link.

Article 9

Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability.

Article 18

Freedom of belief, worship and the performance of religious functions are guaranteed, provided public order or public morals are not violated.

Article 20

Freedom of residence and movement shall be guaranteed within the limits of the law.

2003 Amended Basic Law | The Palestinian Basic Law

 

[Phoenall]

and it is just as big of a lie as it was then.

no, of course it isn't. The fact that you disagree with international law doesn't mean you can change it. The jews' rights to the land is protected.

there is nothing sweet about a position that denies the reality of the un position when it comes to international law. The un recently recognized an observer palestinian state to the 67 borders...all attempts by people who hold this position are dooming the israeli state with constant war-fare that she cannot win in the long ruin.

it did no such thing and you have never shown were any un document states that palestine is recognised to the non existent '67 borders. All you ever produce is the press release of the palestinians spokesperson that is not acceptance of the '67 borders at all.

 

[P F Tinmore]

no, of course it isn't. The fact that you disagree with international law doesn't mean you can change it. The jews' rights to the land is protected.

there is nothing sweet about a position that denies the reality of the un position when it comes to international law. The un recently recognized an observer palestinian state to the 67 borders...all attempts by people who hold this position are dooming the israeli state with constant war-fare that she cannot win in the long ruin.

it did no such thing and you have never shown were any un document states that palestine is recognised to the non existent '67 borders. All you ever produce is the press release of the palestinians spokesperson that is not acceptance of the '67 borders at all.

Good point. The '67 border was an Abbas thing. The people were not consulted in that decision.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

From your link:



The mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

As citizens of Palestine, they could live anywhere in Palestine that they wish.

The current constitution of Palestine says the same thing.

What is the constitution of Palestine? Give me a link.

Article 9

Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability.

Article 18

Freedom of belief, worship and the performance of religious functions are guaranteed, provided public order or public morals are not violated.

Article 20

Freedom of residence and movement shall be guaranteed within the limits of the law.

2003 Amended Basic Law | The Palestinian Basic Law

Ad I said, if they are citizens of Israel they have equal rights. Those who are citizens of Palestinian controlled or Hamas controlled territory (Gaza) do not have the rights that arab/Christian/and other religions have if they hold Israeli citizenship. Your link is for Palestinian controlled territory.

 

[Victory67]

it did no such thing and you have never shown were any un document states that palestine is recognised to the non existent '67 borders. All you ever produce is the press release of the palestinians spokesperson that is not acceptance of the '67 borders at all.

The State of Palestine was declared by the Palestinians on November 15th, 1988.

The declared borders include all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

This state was recognized by the United Nations as a non-member state in 2012.

 

[P F Tinmore]

it did no such thing and you have never shown were any un document states that palestine is recognised to the non existent '67 borders. All you ever produce is the press release of the palestinians spokesperson that is not acceptance of the '67 borders at all.

The State of Palestine was declared by the Palestinians on November 15th, 1988.

The declared borders include all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

This state was recognized by the United Nations as a non-member state in 2012.

The only problem is that the "67 borders" have never been anybody's borders.

You can't just say something and make it true.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Armistice lines, not borders.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Once in a while, you make a bit of sense.

Phoenall, et al,

Annexation is the permanent acquisition and incorporation of a territory into a new/different nation. Once annexed, the territory become part of that country.

What are the rules on annexed land being transferred to another nation, does the ownership pass on or does it stay with the original nation that annexed the land.

(COMMENT)

Annexation does not effect property ownership.

I live in Ohio. I own my property. If the US sells Ohio to Canada, I change citizenship, I will Pay taxes to Ottawa, I will be a Canadian and not American, and I will follow Canadian Law. But it doesn't effect my property. I still own the land. The only thing different about the land is that it is now defended by Canada, and not the US. The international border would be extended out to encompass Ohio. But I still own my little patch of land and the house.

Sovereignty doesn't effect property ownership.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course if Canada came down with guns, took over Ohio, and ran you off to Pennsylvania you would favor the right to return that you oppose now.

This does not address the right to country that exists irrespective of land ownership. It is said (constantly) that the Palestinians have no right to Palestine because they did not own land-that it was leased.

Does this mean that people who live in...say...New York City who lease apartments have no right to the US because they don't own any land.

(OBSERVATION)

It has been my experience that the issue of land ownership relative to the argument for sovereign rights has been predominately a pro-Palestinian position.

However, land ownership, while an interesting data point (something to take into consideration), is not --- in itself, an argument that supports either side of the equation in terms of sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

Again, inhabitance (residing in a given area) and property ownership are two different thing.

Sovereignty is a declaration of the "inhabitance" or "indigenous population."

The rights of the "indigenous population" (covered in Resolution 61/295 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and the right to self determination (covered in Resolution 49/148 Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) are different kinds of rights. While they work hand-and-glove fashion, one does not presume the other.

When we say that "indigenous peoples" have the right to self-determination; we are saying (among other things) that they have the right to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. BUT! the right of self-determination is not exclusive to the "indigenous population." It is a right extended to all people (Palestinian and Israeli alike). Just as all individuals have the right to a nationality; it is not exclusive to "indigenous people."

While being indigenous may give the upper hand to a segment of the population, it confers no special right above that of other people. The indigenous population cannot claim superiority over an minority or immigrant culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

it did no such thing and you have never shown were any un document states that palestine is recognised to the non existent '67 borders. All you ever produce is the press release of the palestinians spokesperson that is not acceptance of the '67 borders at all.

The State of Palestine was declared by the Palestinians on November 15th, 1988.

The declared borders include all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

This state was recognized by the United Nations as a non-member state in 2012.

The only problem is that the "67 borders" have never been anybody's borders.

You can't just say something and make it true.

Classic comment, absolutely classic. I wish you would take heed of your own thought there.

 

[Victory67]

The only problem is that the "67 borders" have never been anybody's borders.

You can't just say something and make it true.

When the world's international body of nations recognizes something as legitimate, it has meaning.

 

[Indeependent]

I wonder what Mexicans have to say about the US.
It's also true that it's not OK to relocate an indigenous native but it's OK to kill them vis-à-vis a whole bunch of Islamic nations.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Once in a while, you make a bit of sense.

Phoenall, et al,

Annexation is the permanent acquisition and incorporation of a territory into a new/different nation. Once annexed, the territory become part of that country.


(COMMENT)

Annexation does not effect property ownership.

I live in Ohio. I own my property. If the US sells Ohio to Canada, I change citizenship, I will Pay taxes to Ottawa, I will be a Canadian and not American, and I will follow Canadian Law. But it doesn't effect my property. I still own the land. The only thing different about the land is that it is now defended by Canada, and not the US. The international border would be extended out to encompass Ohio. But I still own my little patch of land and the house.

Sovereignty doesn't effect property ownership.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course if Canada came down with guns, took over Ohio, and ran you off to Pennsylvania you would favor the right to return that you oppose now.

This does not address the right to country that exists irrespective of land ownership. It is said (constantly) that the Palestinians have no right to Palestine because they did not own land-that it was leased.

Does this mean that people who live in...say...New York City who lease apartments have no right to the US because they don't own any land.

(OBSERVATION)

It has been my experience that the issue of land ownership relative to the argument for sovereign rights has been predominately a pro-Palestinian position.

However, land ownership, while an interesting data point (something to take into consideration), is not --- in itself, an argument that supports either side of the equation in terms of sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

Again, inhabitance (residing in a given area) and property ownership are two different thing.

Sovereignty is a declaration of the "inhabitance" or "indigenous population."

The rights of the "indigenous population" (covered in Resolution 61/295 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and the right to self determination (covered in Resolution 49/148 Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) are different kinds of rights. While they work hand-and-glove fashion, one does not presume the other.

When we say that "indigenous peoples" have the right to self-determination; we are saying (among other things) that they have the right to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. BUT! the right of self-determination is not exclusive to the "indigenous population." It is a right extended to all people (Palestinian and Israeli alike). Just as all individuals have the right to a nationality; it is not exclusive to "indigenous people."

While being indigenous may give the upper hand to a segment of the population, it confers no special right above that of other people. The indigenous population cannot claim superiority over an minority or immigrant culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Immigrants who obtain citizenship enjoy the same rights as the other citizens.

They can't, however, claim exclusive or superior rights.

 

[Victory67]

The issue now appears to be that Israel wants to pick and choose which parts of specific international laws they will respect and which parts they will ignore.

I wonder how this will affect international opinions of Israel.