Jews trying to get Americans killed - as usual

[Sweet_Caroline]

No the land was supposed to be divided, creating a jewish state and an arab state.

Wrong:

From the Preamble"

"... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,

The only state was to be Palestine. They said "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine", they did not say state or country for the Jewish people.

Article 2:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Notice it doesn't say "countries" plural, it says "country".


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

That pertains to what was known as Palestine. The arabs were given their own countries as I mentioned before. Stop trying to twist it.

 

[aris2chat]

No the land was supposed to be divided, creating a jewish state and an arab state.

Wrong:

From the Preamble"

"... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,

The only state was to be Palestine. They said "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine", they did not say state or country for the Jewish people.

Article 2:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Notice it doesn't say "countries" plural, it says "country".


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

 

[montelatici]

No the land was supposed to be divided, creating a jewish state and an arab state.

Wrong:

From the Preamble"

"... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,

The only state was to be Palestine. They said "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine", they did not say state or country for the Jewish people.

Article 2:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Notice it doesn't say "countries" plural, it says "country".


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

That pertains to what was known as Palestine. The arabs were given their own countries as I mentioned before. Stop trying to twist it.

I am not twisting anything. The Mandate for Palestine is clear on what it says, and nothing done in other Mandates by any other Mandatory(ies) have any effect on the legal terms of the Palestine Mandate. I says what it says.

" in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

It says "in Palestine" twice, never says a Jewish state or country, doesn't say "state" or "country", besides Palestine, at all.

And, to further make it clear, the Preamble also states:

"and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" referring to Palestine, which was not yet a country but would become one that would host a national home for the Jewish people.

Can it get any clearer than that?


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

No the land was supposed to be divided, creating a jewish state and an arab state.

Wrong:

From the Preamble"

"... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,

The only state was to be Palestine. They said "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine", they did not say state or country for the Jewish people.

Article 2:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Notice it doesn't say "countries" plural, it says "country".


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

That pertains to what was known as Palestine. The arabs were given their own countries as I mentioned before. Stop trying to twist it.

I am not twisting anything. The Mandate for Palestine is clear on what it says, and nothing done in other Mandates by any other Mandatory(ies) have any effect on the legal terms of the Palestine Mandate. I says what it says.

" in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

It says "in Palestine" twice, never says a Jewish state or country, doesn't say "state" or "country", besides Palestine, at all.

And, to further make it clear, the Preamble also states:

"and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" referring to Palestine, which was not yet a country but would become one that would host a national home for the Jewish people.

Can it get any clearer than that?


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

A national home for the Jewish people in the country called Palestine, and of course a home for the arabs in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as I quoted above. Wow, how difficult is it to understand? The Jews were given back their country known as Palestine, and the arabs given surrounding countries. It can't be any clearer.
Just because you don't like to hear it, doesn't make it false.

 

[montelatici]

That pertains to what was known as Palestine. The arabs were given their own countries as I mentioned before. Stop trying to twist it.

I am not twisting anything. The Mandate for Palestine is clear on what it says, and nothing done in other Mandates by any other Mandatory(ies) have any effect on the legal terms of the Palestine Mandate. I says what it says.

" in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

It says "in Palestine" twice, never says a Jewish state or country, doesn't say "state" or "country", besides Palestine, at all.

And, to further make it clear, the Preamble also states:

"and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" referring to Palestine, which was not yet a country but would become one that would host a national home for the Jewish people.

Can it get any clearer than that?


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

A national home for the Jewish people in the country called Palestine, and of course a home for the arabs in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as I quoted above. Wow, how difficult is it to understand? The Jews were given back their country known as Palestine, and the arabs given surrounding countries. It can't be any clearer.
Just because you don't like to hear it, doesn't make it false.

How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.

[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

I am not twisting anything. The Mandate for Palestine is clear on what it says, and nothing done in other Mandates by any other Mandatory(ies) have any effect on the legal terms of the Palestine Mandate. I says what it says.

" in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

It says "in Palestine" twice, never says a Jewish state or country, doesn't say "state" or "country", besides Palestine, at all.

And, to further make it clear, the Preamble also states:

"and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" referring to Palestine, which was not yet a country but would become one that would host a national home for the Jewish people.

Can it get any clearer than that?


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

A national home for the Jewish people in the country called Palestine, and of course a home for the arabs in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as I quoted above. Wow, how difficult is it to understand? The Jews were given back their country known as Palestine, and the arabs given surrounding countries. It can't be any clearer.
Just because you don't like to hear it, doesn't make it false.

How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.

[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

That was the wording of the Mandate.
Civil and religious rights of other peoples were not prejudiced.

 

[aris2chat]

I am not twisting anything. The Mandate for Palestine is clear on what it says, and nothing done in other Mandates by any other Mandatory(ies) have any effect on the legal terms of the Palestine Mandate. I says what it says.

" in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

It says "in Palestine" twice, never says a Jewish state or country, doesn't say "state" or "country", besides Palestine, at all.

And, to further make it clear, the Preamble also states:

"and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" referring to Palestine, which was not yet a country but would become one that would host a national home for the Jewish people.

Can it get any clearer than that?


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

A national home for the Jewish people in the country called Palestine, and of course a home for the arabs in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as I quoted above. Wow, how difficult is it to understand? The Jews were given back their country known as Palestine, and the arabs given surrounding countries. It can't be any clearer.
Just because you don't like to hear it, doesn't make it false.

How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.

[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

arab Israelis have the rights that come with citizenship. Those that don't want to be Israel and live by the laws of Israel have left and now live in the WB, gaza and the refugee camps...or found jobs and applied for citizenship in other countries.

Palestinians did not have to leave, they made the choice to. They choose to fight against the Israeli state instead of accepting it existence. If palestinian are treated as hostile and excluded from entering Israel, it is due to their own actions. If they object to not having equal right with Israeli, it because they choose not to be Israelis.

 

[Phoenall]

No the land was supposed to be divided, creating a jewish state and an arab state.

Wrong:

From the Preamble"

"... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,

The only state was to be Palestine. They said "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine", they did not say state or country for the Jewish people.

Article 2:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Notice it doesn't say "countries" plural, it says "country".


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Yes Palestine the area on the map that was about to see two Hashemite kingdoms formed in it. It also stated THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME, which means the country that the Jews lost 2000 years ago.

Yes it stated NATIONAL HOME as in NATION

Yes the country as yet unnamed that was to become Israel. All the maps say NATION OF ISREAL from the period, they do not say NATION OF PALESTINE

 

[RoccoR]

Sweet_Caroline, montelatici, et al,

Remember that these documents were created by men based on a 19th Century understanding of what civil and religious rights meant.

A national home for the Jewish people in the country called Palestine, and of course a home for the arabs in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as I quoted above. Wow, how difficult is it to understand? The Jews were given back their country known as Palestine, and the arabs given surrounding countries. It can't be any clearer.
Just because you don't like to hear it, doesn't make it false.

How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.

[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

That was the wording of the Mandate.
Civil and religious rights of other peoples were not prejudiced.

(COMMENT)

So, when the authors of these very early 20th Century documents say "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...." --- what did THEY really means?

• The Balfour Declaration, ----- the San Remo Conference, nor the Palestine Mandate extend any specific authoritative "rights" to the Jewish people.
  • The Balfour Declaration was neither an independent authority or a directive. It was an expression of intent to extend its "best endeavors" to facilitate the achievement of a "national home for the Jewish people."
  • The San Remo Convention was more multifaceted, yet still not a independent authority or a directive extending any special rights to the Jewish People.
    • The San Remo Convention was an agreement to attempt to achieve the facilitation of the Balfour Declaration of a "national home for the Jewish people."
    • The San Remo Convention was an agreement on the framework (the Mandate) to bring meaning to Article 22 of the Covenant.
  • The Mandate was the product of the San Remo Convention and the League of Nation authority for the assigned Mandatory.

Under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them was not authorized. That is why an additional authority [GA/RES/181(II)] was required.

There were a few "rights" addressed (civil and religious rights). What they did include:

• Rights and free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, and protection of Moslem sacred shrines.
• Freedom to maintain indigenous schools for the education of its culture.
• Freedom to manage financial obligations legitimately incurred debt.
• The protection of pensions or gratuities (inheritance).
• Real Estate laws and the protection of private property.

But nothing else specifically was mentioned. It has always been assumed that civil property rights were included. And still today, that assumption seems valid.

When trying to translate what the authors intent was, one has to think like a early 20th Century author with a 19th Century education and classical outlook on humanity. But you cannot include all the advancement made in summation of the 20th Century and apply 21st Century logic to them. That would not be representative of their true intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

A good point.

Difficult to try to get a mind schooled in the late 19th to translate precisely into the early 21st, in connection with social issues, perceptions, culture, and even some types of rights.

 

[montelatici]

A national home for the Jewish people in the country called Palestine, and of course a home for the arabs in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as I quoted above. Wow, how difficult is it to understand? The Jews were given back their country known as Palestine, and the arabs given surrounding countries. It can't be any clearer.
Just because you don't like to hear it, doesn't make it false.

How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.

[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

arab Israelis have the rights that come with citizenship. Those that don't want to be Israel and live by the laws of Israel have left and now live in the WB, gaza and the refugee camps...or found jobs and applied for citizenship in other countries.

Palestinians did not have to leave, they made the choice to. They choose to fight against the Israeli state instead of accepting it existence. If palestinian are treated as hostile and excluded from entering Israel, it is due to their own actions. If they object to not having equal right with Israeli, it because they choose not to be Israelis.

"Palestinians did not have to leave,"

Now there, there. Do you really expect informed people to believe the Zionist propaganda. Christian and Muslim villages had been attacked by Irgun, Haganah and Stern Gang types, and villagers were being slaughtered, you really think they "did not have to leave". You are on an alternative universe.

 

[montelatici]

Sweet_Caroline, montelatici, et al,

Remember that these documents were created by men based on a 19th Century understanding of what civil and religious rights meant.

How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.

[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

That was the wording of the Mandate.
Civil and religious rights of other peoples were not prejudiced.

(COMMENT)

So, when the authors of these very early 20th Century documents say "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...." --- what did THEY really means?

• The Balfour Declaration, ----- the San Remo Conference, nor the Palestine Mandate extend any specific authoritative "rights" to the Jewish people.
  • The Balfour Declaration was neither an independent authority or a directive. It was an expression of intent to extend its "best endeavors" to facilitate the achievement of a "national home for the Jewish people."
  • The San Remo Convention was more multifaceted, yet still not a independent authority or a directive extending any special rights to the Jewish People.
    • The San Remo Convention was an agreement to attempt to achieve the facilitation of the Balfour Declaration of a "national home for the Jewish people."
    • The San Remo Convention was an agreement on the framework (the Mandate) to bring meaning to Article 22 of the Covenant.
  • The Mandate was the product of the San Remo Convention and the League of Nation authority for the assigned Mandatory.

Under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them was not authorized. That is why an additional authority [GA/RES/181(II)] was required.

There were a few "rights" addressed (civil and religious rights). What they did include:

• Rights and free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, and protection of Moslem sacred shrines.
• Freedom to maintain indigenous schools for the education of its culture.
• Freedom to manage financial obligations legitimately incurred debt.
• The protection of pensions or gratuities (inheritance).
• Real Estate laws and the protection of private property.

But nothing else specifically was mentioned. It has always been assumed that civil property rights were included. And still today, that assumption seems valid.

When trying to translate what the authors intent was, one has to think like a early 20th Century author with a 19th Century education and classical outlook on humanity. But you cannot include all the advancement made in summation of the 20th Century and apply 21st Century logic to them. That would not be representative of their true intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

" nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities "

Ok genius, do you see anything that can be misinterpreted in the above? And note the word "might" rather than will. Nothing that "might" prejudice the civil rights was prohibited, and forcing the Christians and Muslims to be ruled by Jews (which was not the intent of the Mandate at all) certainly "might" prejudice the rights of the non-Jews.

 

[montelatici]

A national home for the Jewish people in the country called Palestine, and of course a home for the arabs in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as I quoted above. Wow, how difficult is it to understand? The Jews were given back their country known as Palestine, and the arabs given surrounding countries. It can't be any clearer.
Just because you don't like to hear it, doesn't make it false.

How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.

[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."

That was the wording of the Mandate.
Civil and religious rights of other peoples were not prejudiced.

Of course they were. If the had't there would not be Palestinian refugees or Palestinians penned up in Gulags. But it isn't the point, the word was "might" not "could", so putting non-Jews under the rule of Jews under the Partition was in contravention of the terms of the Mandate. It is obvious that putting non-Jews under the rule of Jews "might" prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jews. And it certainly did.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

In this case the term "might" is an expression of a "probability" interfering with the object of the directive: "civil and religious rights"

"nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities"​

Ok genius, do you see anything that can be misinterpreted in the above? And note the word "might" rather than will. Nothing that "might" prejudice the civil rights was prohibited, and forcing the Christians and Muslims to be ruled by Jews (which was not the intent of the Mandate at all) certainly "might" prejudice the rights of the non-Jews.

(COMMENT)

Jewish State self-governance does not imply an interference with the (19th Century understanding of - previously listed) "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities."

While it is true that the intent did not explicitly require a Jewish State, it did not preclude it.

The Allied Powers, coming of age in the very early 19th Century, did not envision the quibbling over individual words and phases by a 21st Century world citizenry empowered by the internet. They did not envision critiques by outside observers totally without an understanding of early 20th Century diplomacy and the political importance and concerns they had in the day. I'm quite sure, if they were still around, they would adjudge much of our commentary as "how totally absurd!" Civil and Religious Rights had a totally different meaning to them; and were totally different and mutually exclusive of self-governance and sovereignty. Land ownership was not (as often done here) relevant to sovereign territorial leadership or a related extension to government control and rule. The "Future of Palestine" was but a small sliver of territory at a time when four mighty empires collapsed and royal house were falling like flies.

Remember, a vast majority of the Arabs concerned were citizens of the Ottoman Empire; an enemy population.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

"While it is true that the intent did not explicitly require a Jewish State, it did not preclude it."

It precluded a state that "might" prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jews. In those days, the potential prejudice of the civil rights of one people over another on a religious basis was more expected than today. So, sorry, your dog won't hunt.

 

[Indofred]

The pro Israel lot can bleat on all they like but they can't get past facts.

There was no Israel for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves, mass immigration and wars.
States that start with a war tend to end with a war. Sadly, that'll involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is nonsense.

"While it is true that the intent did not explicitly require a Jewish State, it did not preclude it."

It precluded a state that "might" prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jews. In those days, the potential prejudice of the civil rights of one people over another on a religious basis was more expected than today. So, sorry, your dog won't hunt.

(COMMENT)

WWII did not start over the annihilation (Holocaust) of the Jews, it started over territorial control by armed invasion. And even at that --- nearly all of Europe was seized before the Allied Powers took action. Religious and civil rights were embryonic concepts; even tolerated by blind eye.

Nearly all the contemporary concepts come post-World War II.

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights - December 1948
• Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples - December 1960
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - December 1966
• Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination - December 1994
• Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - September 2007

With the exception of the block of laws, treaties and conventions dealing with slavery from the late 1920's, nearly every contemporary protocol on civil and religious rights is a post war invention.

My dog hunts well. If you go to the UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS page, you can find them all listed, with links.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

The pro Israel lot can bleat on all they like but they can't get past facts.

There was no Israel for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves, mass immigration and wars.
States that start with a war tend to end with a war. Sadly, that'll involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt.

And just who is it, that you think is going to destroy Israel with war?

 

[RoccoR]

Indofred, et al,

Let's make this clear; perfectly clear. Israel does not have to rely on ancient history to establish its right to exist. For that matter, neither do the Palestinians.

The pro Israel lot can bleat on all they like but they can't get past facts.

There was no Israel for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves, mass immigration and wars.
States that start with a war tend to end with a war. Sadly, that'll involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt.

(COMMENT)

Just as the PLO establish the modern day Arab State of Palestine by invoking contemporary laws, protocols and resolutions; so it was done with the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel.

"There was no nation of Palestine - ever - for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves and wars."
And they are not doing too well.​

Fewer innocent people get hurt if their leadership follows a basic premise.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

The pro Israel lot can bleat on all they like but they can't get past facts.

There was no Israel for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves, mass immigration and wars.
States that start with a war tend to end with a war. Sadly, that'll involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt.

There was no palestine as a state, sanjuk or authority. under the arab/muslim empires.

Jews could name their state what ever they wanted to. Israel was their choice. Why would they call their state palestine? They were Israelis and wanted their country to reflect what and who they were.