Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a subjective impression based on an emotional perception.

• "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people. It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.​

​

The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs (vast majority of the people) has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of Resolution 181 (II). This has a limited application on influencing the decisions of the Allied Powers, the Powers which had the full rights and title to the territory. Well it does not. If it did, then all sorts of authoritative decrees would be out there. In fact, there is an enormous amount of non-binding, ambiguous, and unsupported emotional paper wars inflicting dangerously deep lacerations and cuts, that are independently fatal.

• The Jewish Agency coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.

√ Unfortunately the Arab League aggression across the frontier prevented full compliance.​

• "Existence" IS NOT dependent on some proportionality or influence extended by a "majority." This is especially true under the conditions as presented by the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​

In the case of a disagreement by inhabitants, it is not unusual for the parties concerned to engage in a Civil War or some other type conflict to resolved the dispute. Several of the Allied Powers experienced such disputes. Just to name a few:

• America
  • Revolutionary War (Modern United States and Canada), 1775-1784
  • American Civil War (United States), 1861–1865

• Japan
  • Boshin War (Japan), 1868–1869
  • Satsuma Rebellion (Japan), 1877

• War in the Vendée (France), 1793–1804; between Royalist and Republican forces, part of the French Revolutionary Wars

• Austrian Civil War, February 1934
• Spanish Civil War, 1936–1939
• Italian Civil War, 1943–1945

• Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, and Scotland),
  • Irish Confederate Wars, some parts of which were a civil war.[3]
  • Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, to some extent a civil war, 1644–1652
  • English Civil War, 1642–1651
    • First English Civil War, 1642–1646
    • Second English Civil War, 1648–1649
    • Third English Civil War, 1650–1651

It should be noticed that many historians still consider the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict a typeof Civil War that has not been resolved. As a Civil War the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict might be considered more of an NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) as opposed to an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

IACs 'vs' NIACs​

The outcomes of a Civil War usually is the deciding factor as to the Status of government and territorial boundaries. But again, the political result (usually) has nothing to do with the desires of the proportional majority, but more on the outcome of the military confrontation.

Most Respectfully,
R

How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a subjective impression based on an emotional perception.

• "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people. It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.​

​

The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs (vast majority of the people) has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of Resolution 181 (II). This has a limited application on influencing the decisions of the Allied Powers, the Powers which had the full rights and title to the territory. Well it does not. If it did, then all sorts of authoritative decrees would be out there. In fact, there is an enormous amount of non-binding, ambiguous, and unsupported emotional paper wars inflicting dangerously deep lacerations and cuts, that are independently fatal.

• The Jewish Agency coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.

√ Unfortunately the Arab League aggression across the frontier prevented full compliance.​

• "Existence" IS NOT dependent on some proportionality or influence extended by a "majority." This is especially true under the conditions as presented by the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​

In the case of a disagreement by inhabitants, it is not unusual for the parties concerned to engage in a Civil War or some other type conflict to resolved the dispute. Several of the Allied Powers experienced such disputes. Just to name a few:

• America
  • Revolutionary War (Modern United States and Canada), 1775-1784
  • American Civil War (United States), 1861–1865

• Japan
  • Boshin War (Japan), 1868–1869
  • Satsuma Rebellion (Japan), 1877

• War in the Vendée (France), 1793–1804; between Royalist and Republican forces, part of the French Revolutionary Wars

• Austrian Civil War, February 1934
• Spanish Civil War, 1936–1939
• Italian Civil War, 1943–1945

• Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, and Scotland),
  • Irish Confederate Wars, some parts of which were a civil war.[3]
  • Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, to some extent a civil war, 1644–1652
  • English Civil War, 1642–1651
    • First English Civil War, 1642–1646
    • Second English Civil War, 1648–1649
    • Third English Civil War, 1650–1651

It should be noticed that many historians still consider the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict a typeof Civil War that has not been resolved. As a Civil War the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict might be considered more of an NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) as opposed to an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

IACs 'vs' NIACs​

The outcomes of a Civil War usually is the deciding factor as to the Status of government and territorial boundaries. But again, the political result (usually) has nothing to do with the desires of the proportional majority, but more on the outcome of the military confrontation.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs (vast majority of the people) has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of Resolution 181 (II)​

Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented.

It is a non issue.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an invalid question.

Post-WWII is the time period we are discussing. But!!! We can broaden the period beyond the "existence" of Israel (May 1948) --- if you wish.

How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?

(COMMENT)

The question implies that the Allied Powers used the Jewish Immigration to invade a territory.

First: The territory in question, without regard to who lived there, was relinquished by the former Sovereign Powers (Ottoman/Turks) to the Allied Powers (Article 16 - Treaty of Lausanne). All rights and Title were surrendered.

Second: The Arab Palestinian can only claim an invasion --- if --- their territory was invaded. But the Arab Palestinian HAD NO "Rights and Title" to any territory in the region. There is a latent question here: What "Arab Palestinian Territory" was invaded? Answer: None --- NO "Rights and Title".

Third: The Allied Powers, no matter the method (direct military invasion or proxy settlements), cannot invade itself. The immigration of the Jewish People was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) by all jewish people willing to reconstitute the JNH.
​

We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition (Arab Palestinian Rights and Title) that never existed. And even if that point was in dispute, the military outcome settled the point long ago. Now what we have is a belligerent people that are parasitic and survive only on donor contributions, unable to support themselves and stand alone (an original Article 22 Criteria in the Covenant).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an invalid question.

Post-WWII is the time period we are discussing. But!!! We can broaden the period beyond the "existence" of Israel (May 1948) --- if you wish.

How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?

(COMMENT)

The question implies that the Allied Powers used the Jewish Immigration to invade a territory.

First: The territory in question, without regard to who lived there, was relinquished to the former Sovereign Powers (Ottoman/Turks) to the Allied Powers (Article 16 - Treaty of Lausanne). All rights and Title were surrendered.

Second: The Arab Palestinian can only claim an invasion --- if --- their territory was invaded. But the Arab Palestinian HAD NO "Rights and Title" to any territory in the region. There is a latent question here: What "Arab Palestinian Territory" was invaded? Answer: None --- NO "Rights and Title".

Third: The Allied Powers, no matter the method (direct military invasion or proxy settlements), cannot invade itself. The immigration of the Jewish People was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) by all jewish people willing to reconstitute the JNH.
​

We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition (Arab Palestinian Rights and Title) that never existed. And even if that point was in dispute, the military outcome settled the point long ago. No what we have is a belligerent people that are parasitic and survive only on donor contributions, unable to support themselves and stand alone (an original Article 22 Criteria in the Covenant).

Most Respectfully,
R

We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition (Arab Palestinian Rights and Title) that never existed.​

Another Israeli talking point.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get this wrong every time, but in this case it actually doesn't make any difference. Although you do not acknowledge the UN announcement of implementation (PAL/169), only demonstrates the intellectual honesty involved here.

You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs (vast majority of the people) has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of Resolution 181 (II)

Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented.
It is a non issue.

(COMMENT)

As you copied 'n' pasted --- I said "recommendation." In this case we are talking about "INTENT." What the Allied Powers had as an "INTENT."

The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago. It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution (no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians). The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.

Whether or not the UNPC was right or wrong is irrelevant. Today, the sovereignty of Israel is well establish; while the Arab Palestinians are a people that argue and struggle to make Jihadism and radicalized Islam an art form.
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Does a "talking point" (I've not seen a Talking Point Paper from the Israeli Government) make it any less valid?

We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition (Arab Palestinian Rights and Title) that never existed.

Another Israeli talking point.

(COMMENT)

If you want to challenge the point, then disassemble it by demonstrating that it is flawed. In this case, you may easily do that by demonstrating that it is FALSE.

• Produce a valid argument that presents evidence that the Arab Palestinian had rights and title.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Eloy]

The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.

Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?

Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights. He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.

No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.

 

[Hollie]

The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.

Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?

Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights. He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.

No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.

What "Pal'istanian land" would that be. The geographic area you falsely and ignorantly label as "Pal'istanian land" was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. You suffer the same false assumptions and presumptions as another poster who has convinced himself that his invented "country of Pal'istan" actually existed.

It did not.

 

[Ropey]

Israel exists. Israel is strong.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

 

[Shusha]

How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?

Oh, come on. You act as though the Jewish people didn't exist and didn't exist in "Palestine". The civil war is between the native Jewish people (both those in the territory and those in the diaspora) and the Arab Christians and Muslims (a mixture of an invading culture and some of the original inhabitants).

 

[Shusha]

The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.

Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?

Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights. He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.

No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.

So you AGREE that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing gives those expelled a right to return. And in order to continue to live in your fantasy that the Jewish people have no rights you must deny a self-evident and obvious reality that the Jewish people originated on the land and were in a Diaspora. You have to disconnect the Jewish people from being Jewish. You have to pretend that the Jewish people had no source. Like UNESCO you deny historical fact.

 

[montelatici]

Europeans were not expelled from Palestine. Zionist Europeans invaded Palestine and expelled the native people whose ancestors of different faiths at different times had lived their for thousands of years. Many of their ancestors, if not the majority, may have practiced Judaism before converting to Christianity and then to Islam, by the way.

Your dog won't hunt.

 

[Shusha]

montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,

Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland?

Yes or no? Why or why not?

 

[Hollie]

Europeans were not expelled from Palestine. Zionist Europeans invaded Palestine and expelled the native people whose ancestors of different faiths at different times had lived their for thousands of years. Many of their ancestors, if not the majority, may have practiced Judaism before converting to Christianity and then to Islam, by the way.

Your dog won't hunt.

That's rather pointless. Firstly, there was no Zionist Invasion™ of Turkish territory which you ignorantly and falsely believe to the "country of Pal'istan". There was, of course colonization by Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese land grabbers and that was coincident with the conquests by both the Turks and Romans.

My carma just ran over your dogma.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,

Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland?

Yes or no? Why or why not?

While extremely problematic to be able to prove such a thing after 2,000 years, they would have a right to be resettled but their resettlement would have to be subject to the wishes of the native people that had remained in said homeland and would certainly not have any right to dispossess and/or rule over the people that had remained in the homeland.

 

[montelatici]

Europeans were not expelled from Palestine. Zionist Europeans invaded Palestine and expelled the native people whose ancestors of different faiths at different times had lived their for thousands of years. Many of their ancestors, if not the majority, may have practiced Judaism before converting to Christianity and then to Islam, by the way.

Your dog won't hunt.

That's rather pointless. Firstly, there was no Zionist Invasion™ of Turkish territory which you ignorantly and falsely believe to the "country of Pal'istan". There was, of course colonization by Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese land grabbers and that was coincident with the conquests by both the Turks and Romans.

My carma just ran over your dogma.

You have read too much fantasy and science fiction. No one believes it.

 

[Eloy]

The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.

Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?

Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights. He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.

No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.

So you AGREE that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing gives those expelled a right to return. And in order to continue to live in your fantasy that the Jewish people have no rights you must deny a self-evident and obvious reality that the Jewish people originated on the land and were in a Diaspora. You have to disconnect the Jewish people from being Jewish. You have to pretend that the Jewish people had no source. Like UNESCO you deny historical fact.

The legal concept of right of return did not exist in Roman law. We live in a different time than people two millennia ago. The collective punishment of a civilian population and ethnic cleansing was unjust in 70 CE but such recognition of this action by the Romans as inherently wrong was only incorporated into international law relatively recently and within living memory. Two wrongs do not make a right and the Israeli cleansing of Palestine to make way for a Jewish state and its perpetuation in the Occupied Territories is considered illegal today. We have come a long way since the 1st century.

 

[Eloy]

montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,

Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland?

Yes or no? Why or why not?

Nowadays, ethnically cleansing is considered criminal.

 

[MJB12741]

The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.

Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?

Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights. He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.

No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.

So you AGREE that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing gives those expelled a right to return. And in order to continue to live in your fantasy that the Jewish people have no rights you must deny a self-evident and obvious reality that the Jewish people originated on the land and were in a Diaspora. You have to disconnect the Jewish people from being Jewish. You have to pretend that the Jewish people had no source. Like UNESCO you deny historical fact.

The legal concept of right of return did not exist in Roman law. We live in a different time than people two millennia ago. The collective punishment of a civilian population and ethnic cleansing was unjust in 70 CE but such recognition of this action by the Romans as inherently wrong was only incorporated into international law relatively recently and within living memory. Two wrongs do not make a right and the Israeli cleansing of Palestine to make way for a Jewish state and its perpetuation in the Occupied Territories is considered illegal today. We have come a long way since the 1st century.

"Ethnic cleansing" Right on. You have a very fine brain. In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel. And now there are only just over 6 million of them left. It's a GENOCIDE I tell ya, a GENOCIDE.

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org

 

[Hollie]

montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,

Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland?

Yes or no? Why or why not?

Nowadays, ethnically cleansing is considered criminal.

That, is obviously subject to who is doing the considering.

You might want to consider doing some overseas outreach and direct your lecture to Islamist controlled nations across the Islamist Middle East. Islamo-fascism has largely purged non-Islamics from an entire portion of the globe.