Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?

Effective government control over a territory?

Try again.

Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?

Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?

A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.

Israel has never had a defined territory.

 

[Hollie]

Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?

Effective government control over a territory?

Try again.

Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?

Effective government control over a territory?

Try again.

Try crossing the line of demarcation from Islamic terrorist controlled territories where Israel exercises effective control.

Effective control describes occupation not sovereignty.

Actually, no. I understand you're suffering from hurt feelings that the inept, incompetent Islamic terrorists could not manage to effectively govern, build a functioning society; one not dependent on kuffar welfare dollars or establish sovereignty, but that largely describes so many of the failed societies that define the Islamic Middle East.

Cheer up. You can describe the Islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza and the West Bank as typical Islamic state failures.

 

[Hollie]

Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?

Effective government control over a territory?

Try again.

Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?

Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?

A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.

Israel has never had a defined territory.

Describing your imaginary "country of Pal'istan"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?

Effective government control over a territory?

Try again.

Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?

Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?

A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.

Israel has never had a defined territory.

Describing your imaginary "country of Pal'istan"?

Palestine was defined by international borders and had hundreds of thousands of legal citizens. Israeli propaganda says that is not a country.

 

[Hollie]

Effective government control over a territory?

Try again.

Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?

Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?

A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.

Israel has never had a defined territory.

Describing your imaginary "country of Pal'istan"?

Palestine was defined by international borders and had hundreds of thousands of legal citizens. Israeli propaganda says that is not a country.

Why yes. The non-existence of your invented "country of Pal'istan" is all one, global conspiracy as a result of The Zionists™

 

[Shusha]

Palestine was defined by international borders and had hundreds of thousands of legal citizens. Israeli propaganda says that is not a country.

Oh it was definitely a country. The Jewish National Home.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Today, I think there are less than 20 Non-Self-Governing Territories (the official terminology for colonial activity) (NSGTs). The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 is called the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and is the principle document which guides the UN Special Committee on exclusively on the issue of decolonization. The UN considers assisting the movement for independence in Trust and NSGTs extremely important.

"when no such international law exists to this day."

That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.

(COMMENT)

In these contemporary times, there is no application of the anti-colonial law or the decolonization policy as related to the Middle East and Israel. The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is not considered colonized in the context of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].

The attempt by the pro-Palestinian supporters to attach some sort of colonial criminal association to the Arab-Israeli Conflict as it stands today, is simply a frivolous allegation. But even so, it should be noted that being a colonial country is not a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a Crime of Aggression. Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs. It is not a crime or illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R

Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs. It is not a crime or illegal.​

OK, but let's look at Porto Rico. Do we bulldoze homes and build settlements?

If not we are talking apples and oranges.

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.

 

[Hollie]

OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.

That's more than just a little childish. Obvikusly, you're forced to abandon any attempt to defend your invention of this mythical "country of Pal'istan". But retreating by way of cutting and pasting more silly YouTube videos is an embarrassment.

 

[montelatici]

Little Hollie has a problem with people providing back up from neutral sources. But, the fact is, the Israeli Supreme Court decided unequivocally that there is no Israeli Nationality in File No. 8573/08Civil Appeal, Ornan et al. v .Ministry of Interior (Oct. 2,2013 amended on 6.10.2013)

"“The constitutional Jewish-ness of the state negates any judicial option to recognize an ‘Israeli nationality’....."

- See more at: Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality

 

[montelatici]

Palestine was defined by international borders and had hundreds of thousands of legal citizens. Israeli propaganda says that is not a country.

Oh it was definitely a country. The Jewish National Home.

No, it was intended to be a national home within Palestine not a separate country, at least that is what the British stated in writing.


"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

 

[esthermoon]

OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.

If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
I hope I misunderstood...

 

[Hollie]

Little Hollie has a problem with people providing back up from neutral sources. But, the fact is, the Israeli Supreme Court decided unequivocally that there is no Israeli Nationality in File No. 8573/08Civil Appeal, Ornan et al. v .Ministry of Interior (Oct. 2,2013 amended on 6.10.2013)

"“The constitutional Jewish-ness of the state negates any judicial option to recognize an ‘Israeli nationality’....."

- See more at: Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality

You poor, dear. The comments from Mondoweiss are hardly neutral. I'm afraid you need to understand what you frantically cut and paste should be viewed viewed from other than a source with an obvious agenda.

Op-Ed: Why ‘Israeli’ is not a nationality

 

[Indeependent]

OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.

So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew?

False.

 

[montelatici]

Little Hollie has a problem with people providing back up from neutral sources. But, the fact is, the Israeli Supreme Court decided unequivocally that there is no Israeli Nationality in File No. 8573/08Civil Appeal, Ornan et al. v .Ministry of Interior (Oct. 2,2013 amended on 6.10.2013)

"“The constitutional Jewish-ness of the state negates any judicial option to recognize an ‘Israeli nationality’....."

- See more at: Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality

You poor, dear. The comments from Mondoweiss are hardly neutral. I'm afraid you need to understand what you frantically cut and paste should be viewed viewed from other than a source with an obvious agenda.

Op-Ed: Why ‘Israeli’ is not a nationality

Poor little Hollie, you can't even figure out that it is a quote from the court case. Here, would you prefer reading from a different site, the Cardozo opinions of the Israeli Supreme Court site?

"“the existence of an ‘Israeli nationality’ was not proven in the legal sense and the development of new ‘fractions’ of nationality should not be encouraged”

Ornan v. Ministry of the Interior | Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project

 

[montelatici]

OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.

So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew?

False.

OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.

If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
I hope I misunderstood...

You did not misunderstand, much like Apartheid South Africa, Israel categorizes people based on race/ethnicity/religion. And, an Israeli nationality does not exist as the Jews would not want the non-Jews to be Israeli nationals.

The Israeli Supreme Court made this clear :

"“the existence of an ‘Israeli nationality’ was not proven in the legal sense and the development of new ‘fractions’ of nationality should not be encouraged”

Ornan v. Ministry of the Interior | Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project

 

[Hollie]

Little Hollie has a problem with people providing back up from neutral sources. But, the fact is, the Israeli Supreme Court decided unequivocally that there is no Israeli Nationality in File No. 8573/08Civil Appeal, Ornan et al. v .Ministry of Interior (Oct. 2,2013 amended on 6.10.2013)

"“The constitutional Jewish-ness of the state negates any judicial option to recognize an ‘Israeli nationality’....."

- See more at: Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality

You poor, dear. The comments from Mondoweiss are hardly neutral. I'm afraid you need to understand what you frantically cut and paste should be viewed viewed from other than a source with an obvious agenda.

Op-Ed: Why ‘Israeli’ is not a nationality

Poor little Hollie, you can't even figure out that it is a quote from the court case. Here, would you prefer reading from a different site, the Cardozo opinions of the Israeli Supreme Court site?

"“the existence of an ‘Israeli nationality’ was not proven in the legal sense and the development of new ‘fractions’ of nationality should not be encouraged”

Ornan v. Ministry of the Interior | Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project

Your frantic cutting and pasting is a bit pointless. You're obviously trying to find something sinister in the ruling and other than grasping for conspiracy theories, you're offering nothing.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't Demonize Jews just Zionists because of what they have done,their outright shamefulness of their denial of what they have done and over the past few years their ridiculous claim that Judaism is Zionism

No, you artificially create a fake divide between Jews and Zionists in order to put a veneer of social acceptablity on the toxic venom of your hate. See, its socially acceptable to demonize Zionists, but its not socially acceptable to demonize Jews.

The problem with that is no one who spouts off about filthy, evil Zionists is willing to put forth an objective definition of "Zionism". If you had an objective definition of what Zionism is you would be able to articulate it and explain both why you think I am a Zionist and why I am filthy for being one. The definition of Zionism used by most Jewish people is the universal right for all peoples, including the Jewish people, to have self-determination on their ancestral homeland. Do you think that is a good definition? Why or why not? If not, what would you propose as an alternative.

For example, Eloy claimed that Zionism is the belief in an exclusive State only for the Jewish people, with no Arab Muslim or Christian Palestinians permitted. Yay! Good news. By that definition I am not a filthy Zionist. In fact, by that definition, there would be virtually not a single Zionist to be found in the entire world. Phew.

I'll give you another example. I find the religious doctrine of jihad to be heinous. Be clear here -- the ideology is heinous, the people who believe it are not filthy, they are simply products of their environment. Specifically, the idea that the murder of innocents is not only acceptable but desirable; the idea that one can "purchase" a heavenly afterlife by substituting an innocent Jew for your own sins and the idea that G-d wants all of the Jews killed are heinous ideas. The people who believe in those ideas deserve to be condemned for holding those ideas.

Now define how Zionism is a heinous idea and offer proof that I hold those ideas. Else I have no choice but to believe you condemn me as "filthy" simply because I am Jewish.

Dont expect an intelligent answer as none of the hate sites have one apart from " because we say so "

 

[Phoenall]

More partial copying of only the small portion that meets with your POV. When the full contextual report is read it say the opposite.



From your link



ABSTRACT

[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]


Then this

Additionally, Justice Vogelman believes that even without straying from the Tamarin Decision, existing law already provides the Appellant with the means to identify – to themselves and to the world – as Israelis vis-à-vis their Israeli citizenship, which would continue to be registered in the Population Registry, regardless of the nationality marker. This is possible through following the proper process for removing the registration in terms of the nationality marker, according to the Shik decision.



Once again destroyed by your own link that proves you wrong.

Can someone rub salt in monte's wounds by repeating my post for him to see as he has me on ignore after doing this many times before.

 

[Phoenall]

Treaty of Tordesillas divided the New World between Spain and Portugal and was legalized by the Pope, the final authority for Catholic countries at the time. The native people were not in agreement with the treaty. Was it really legal?

NO because the pope was a pervert as shown by the dynasty that nearly toppled catholisism