Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[montelatici]

You have no clue as to what genocide means, do you.

 

[Hollie]

You have no clue as to what genocide means, do you.

You have no clue how pointless your attempt at argument is, do you.

 

[montelatici]

Go back to your fantasy and science fiction. This is for adults.

 

[Hollie]

Go back to your fantasy and science fiction. This is for adults.

I can't help you if you continue to choose self-imposed ignorance over enlightenment.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist.

You keep using that mantra.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.​

There are two things here.

One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.

The other is a little more complicated. The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.

It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.

 

[Phoenall]

So when the Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese illegally migrated into the mandate of palestine they suddenly lost their original nationality and were granted a new nationality by WHO ? ? ? ? ?

Nobody had to grant it to them. According to monte, they magically became natives who had lived there for thousands of years.

Which would be impossible as the arab muslims were not invented prior to 627 C.E. and did not enter palestine until some time in the late 690's, fully conquering it in the mid 700's. The Christians did not emerge until the 4C and were Romano-Greco and not indigenous, they had been wiped out by the Romans sometime in the 1C.

He really needs to read the proper history books

 

[Phoenall]

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

It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist.

You keep using that mantra.

NO that is your talking point as at no time have Israel stated that palestine and the palestinians did not exist. They have stated that the area known as palestine was not a nation until 1988, and that for 2000 years the only palestinians in existence were the Jews.

It is your mantra to say

" It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist. "

 

[Phoenall]

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

The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.​

There are two things here.

One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.

The other is a little more complicated. The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.

It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.

WRONG as that is just the islamonazi version of the facts, the reality is that the arab muslims were in the process of colonising the former Ottoman empire by moving people about. This is why Saudi Arabian arabs came to be kings of Syria and Jordan. It worked at first until the indigenous people realised they were being forced against their will to provide for foriegn leaders.

The treaty of Lausanns says no such thing and does not name palestine at all, and the only borders were those agreed after the fall of the Ottoman empire. A good example is the borders of the mandate of palestine that you try and pass of as the nation of palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

First you have to prove your foreign colonial project as there were Jews living in fear in the M.E. and you try and deny they ever existed

 

[Phoenall]

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.

How many more times must you be told 181 was accepted and implemented, even your hero's have accepted this so why cant you ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

NO another tinnmore play the talking point card because I am losing the argument

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Correct they were taken as slaves into exile by the Romans and were spread all over Europe. Apart from a distinct DNA structure that is only found in Jewish tribes that shows they are from that part of the world, a very close link to the Jewish culture and religious practices they have no connections.
What connections do the arab muslims have to palestine other than islamonazi LIES and propaganda ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

The ancestors of those European Jews were taken as slaves by the Romans when they left the lands of Israel. The same Romans that invented Catholosism

 

[Phoenall]

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.

And you read too much islamonazi propaganda as the Jews were expelled from Israel by the Holy Roman Empire and taken to Europe as slaves. They became widespread and rose to the top in their fields of expertise, which led to the Christians once again expelling them from the land. These same Jews were invited to migrate to palestine in around1825 by the Ottomans after the arab muslims failed to colonise and cultivate the land. All a matter of history as written by some of the worlds greatest historians, so why do you only accept the islamonazi version of events ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

It still doesnt exist in any laws other than those of individual nations. So the arab muslims can go back to their nation of first alliegance.

The only ethnic cleansing taking place is that of the non muslims by hamas and fatah, and only idiots deny that this is the case. The arab muslims are recent arrivals to the lands and as such have no rights and should be deported back to their first nation. Or the USA should be cleansed of all of the invaders that have ethnically cleansed the lands of its indigenous people and be forced to set an example of doing what the nazi's and muslims believe is right. We can start with the nazi's and muslims cant we ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Unless it is carried out by nazi's and muslims, then it is allowed

But the Jews have ethnically cleansed the land so much that the population has increased by 1000% since 1948, what are they doing wrong ?

 

[Hollie]

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

It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist.

You keep using that mantra.

Aside from your invention of this mythical "country of Pal'istan" you insist existed, no, your invented country of Pal'istan, inhabited by the invented citizens of your invented country of Pal'istan never existed.

This fantasy world you inhabit along with these fantastical notions you insist are real and extant are.... kinda' creepy.

 

[Phoenall]

You have no clue as to what genocide means, do you.

Well you certainly dont as this is what it says

the definition of genocide

noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group



It does not mean the increase in the population of a group by over 1000% in a 68 year period and giving them the latest in medical treatment to allow them to live longer and increase their numbers even more.

The only genocide taking place is that of the Christians by hamas and fatah that have seen a decrease in the population numbers by 90% in the last 8 years

 

[Phoenall]

Go back to your fantasy and science fiction. This is for adults.

Then why are you here if this is for adults and not spoilt brats