Should Israel have been created?

[Hossfly]

Please don't be so obtuse. There is nothing making organizing 'Nakba Day' observances *illegal* - the law doesn't prohibit such events. It doesn't even revoke funding for NGO's which organize such events.

ALL it does is give the appropriate government office the OPTION of reducing funding to such groups. That's akin at worst to removing the tax-exempt status of 'churches' which get too involved in specific politics (ie, directing voting from the pulpit, as opposed to simply saying 'Vote').

If you want to call it 'dissent' for a group to set up with, I don't know - coffins and blood and 'skeleton masks' to UN-celebrate on the Fourth, fine. It's perfectly legal. It's also in bad taste, to say the least, and why should a government fund groups which regard that government's ESTABLISHMENT as a CATASTROPHE?

The "law" is directed at a certain segment of the population that is non-jewish and that is discrimination. The "law" is being used as a club against human rights groups in Israel. Citizenship is being denied to any non-jews who refuse to acknowledge Israel as a "jewish state". This "law" and others like it, are making it illegal to protest the government of Israel. It basically says, "You either goose-step in the direction of current party politics, or face retribution."

Would you be so enthusiastic about tax money paying for a group flying the Stars 'n' Bars and making a show of mourning on the 9th of April?

What happened on April 9th?

A history buff asking a neophyte about history? Unbelieveable!

 

[irosie91]

Indeed, and the Zionists imported those settlers by the boatload for that purpose.

what purpose? there were some boatloads of people who were
escaping from the filth of ISA-RESPECTING genocide ----referring
to them as 'IMPORTS' would be something like suggesting that
Israel IMPORTED ----the sudanese christians who now clog the
streets of tel aviv. ------being survivors of both genocide
by isa-respecters in sudan and in egypt. There are 100s of thousands
of BENGALIS----from EAST BENGAL----clogging the streets of
KOLKATA -----did kolkata IMPORT them or are they escapees from
ISA-RESPECTER genocide in the erstwhile EAST PAKISTAN?

Why they left their previous homes is irrelevant to this issue.

The important part is why they were imported. They were not in Palestine to join the people
and become a part of Palestine. They lived as a separate entity in settlements.

as to Hebron and Jerusalem----its core population of jews were
of communities that had resided there for centuries -----before
being used to entertain you by getting their throats slit

Many Jews in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. were uprooted by Israel's war. They have the right to return to their homes.

The jews in Hebron were uprooted in 1929 when muslims with the
INSPIRATION OF ALLAH-----attacked the completely unarmed religious
community there and to the delight of tinsy SLIT THE THROATS OF
BABIES The jews in Jerusalem were attacked in 1947---murdered
and raped and place in a STARVATION SIEGE that killed many----
Tinsy you grow more nauseting by the second----BUT INTERESTING.

I agree that in a good world ALL PEOPLE GET TO GO BACK with
FULL RIGHTS AND EQUALITY to the places from which they came.
The present day "medina" having been a jewish city for
more than 1000 years can be claimed by yemeni and ethiopian
jews ------(the places they to which they tended to flee the
genocidal filth that took place there 1400 years ago)----and the stench
of shariah would have to be completely discarded ----GREAT IDEA TINSY

I AM ALL FOR IT

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I thought you would never get there for a moment.

UN Charter definition

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

(The United Nation General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970)

In the opening chapter of the UN Charter, respect for the right to self-determination of peoples is presented as one of the purposes of the United Nations. The right to self-determination of peoples was confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly (GA) in the Declaration of Friendly Relations, which was unanimously adopted in 1970 and is considered an authoritative indication of customary international law. Article 1, common to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), reaffirms the right of all peoples to self-determination, and lays upon state parties the obligation to promote and to respect it.

The right to self-determination was first recognised in the context of decolonisation; however, numerous human rights instruments, including conventional law, such as common Article 1 of ICCPR and ICESCR, as well as several GA Resolutions coupled with state practice, have extended its application beyond the colonial context, for example to South Africans under the apartheid regime. Some scholars also affirmed its application to analogous cases, such as peoples under belligerent occupation.

Criteria for the right to self-determination

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state; (2) freely associated with another state or (3) integrated with another state after freely having expressed their will to do so . The definition of realisation of self-determination was confirmed in the Declaration of Friendly Relations .

The right to self-determination - IHL

In every one of your posts you try to justify the denial of the Palestinian's rights by saying these foreigners did this and those foreigners did that. Foreigners, foreigners, foreigners!

What part of without external interference, confuses you?

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the Palestinians declined to accept and independent state, as offered by the UN General Assembly, in GA Resolution 181(II). They had the right (of self-determination) and they (determined to) rejected the offer. [(1) established a sovereign and independent state;] The Arab/Palestinian was wanted more than they were allotted by the UN GA. And when they could not get it, tried (not once, not twice, but three times) to take what they were not allotted by force, with the assistance of external force and interference (Armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt).

As far as "foreigners" are concerned, this is a Red Herring. The previous Sovereign Power over Palestine agreed to the National Home and the immigration. Nothing associated with the immigration can be considered improper as it was part and parcel, an agreed upon consequence.

Also notice that you are trying to retroactively apply the 1970 Resolution to events that happened in 1948, two decades before the GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) was adopted. Even if we discount that space-time travel thing, nothing in the Resolution 2625 (XXV) changes the functions, power, and authority of the GA and Trustee Council in the administration of a Trusteeship (Mandate) over the Ottoman relinquished territory. Nothing about "external interference" restricts the UN GA over its responsibilities and duties in that regard under the charter. The UN Charter/Covenant, the Treaty, and the Mandate, all work together. If anything, the greater violator of Resolution 2625 (XXV) has been on the Arab/Palestinian side (retroactively speaking). It was they that initiated that sent border crossing armies into Israel on multiple occasions. After all, GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) is all about principles that settle disputes by peaceful means and in such a manner that peace and security do not require the intervention of 5 Arab Armies.

I find it rather amusing that the Palestinian try to use the very western laws and concepts that establish and record these principles, yet ignore the basic underlying factors that caused the dispute. The Arab argues that the Jewish did not have the right to self-determination [(1) established a sovereign and independent state;]; that being exclusive to the Arab, and attempt to use some creative accounting to demonstrate that Israel got more more out of the Mandate than did the Arab; even to the point of conveniently forgetting that Jordan was 75% of the original mandate; that became an independent Arab State. (We call that fraud.)

The Arab/Palestinian originally disagreed with the entire idea of a Jewish national home in the region. They wanted it all for themselves. Everything that follows is merely fallout and rationalization of their goal to "oppose the entire concept of a Jewish national home" in the region. All this nonsense about self-determination, eternal interference, apartheid and segregation, entanglements with the charter, treaty, mandate, occupation ---- all this is nothing but to cover the the inordinate desire to possess that which was not theirs to begin with; this being the behavior of the Arab Palestinian. They simply want it all, and think of the land as exclusively theirs.

The Arab/Palestinian, and their Persian friends, all have the same preliminary objective, to create such turmoil and chaos in the region, as to destabilize Israel; simply because in their extreme desire for more than one's proper share --- they want it all. At least Hamas and Hezbollah are honest about it and don't try to use subterfuge in the matter.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a case for recompense, restitution, and reparations? ---- They have, probably, a very good case in some instances.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a cause of action on the matter of territorial dispute? Clearly they do.​

But it must also be remembered that it was the Arab/Palestinian that immediately jumped to the use of force as a first solution, and not the Israeli. And it have been the Arab/Palestinian that has continued the path to armed hostilities and aggression as the primary option --- and not the Israeli. There is certainly some restitution due the Israeli for the hostile actions and horrific events it has had to endure during the term of this dispute.

Both sides have committed grievous errors. Neither side has clean hands. Both sides have suffered. Both sides will need time to heal.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

Like a chess match with Tinmore, eh Rocco?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I thought you would never get there for a moment.

UN Charter definition

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

(The United Nation General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970)

In the opening chapter of the UN Charter, respect for the right to self-determination of peoples is presented as one of the purposes of the United Nations. The right to self-determination of peoples was confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly (GA) in the Declaration of Friendly Relations, which was unanimously adopted in 1970 and is considered an authoritative indication of customary international law. Article 1, common to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), reaffirms the right of all peoples to self-determination, and lays upon state parties the obligation to promote and to respect it.

The right to self-determination was first recognised in the context of decolonisation; however, numerous human rights instruments, including conventional law, such as common Article 1 of ICCPR and ICESCR, as well as several GA Resolutions coupled with state practice, have extended its application beyond the colonial context, for example to South Africans under the apartheid regime. Some scholars also affirmed its application to analogous cases, such as peoples under belligerent occupation.

Criteria for the right to self-determination

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state; (2) freely associated with another state or (3) integrated with another state after freely having expressed their will to do so . The definition of realisation of self-determination was confirmed in the Declaration of Friendly Relations .

The right to self-determination - IHL

In every one of your posts you try to justify the denial of the Palestinian's rights by saying these foreigners did this and those foreigners did that. Foreigners, foreigners, foreigners!

What part of without external interference, confuses you?

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the Palestinians declined to accept and independent state, as offered by the UN General Assembly, in GA Resolution 181(II). They had the right (of self-determination) and they (determined to) rejected the offer. [(1) established a sovereign and independent state;] The Arab/Palestinian was wanted more than they were allotted by the UN GA. And when they could not get it, tried (not once, not twice, but three times) to take what they were not allotted by force, with the assistance of external force and interference (Armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt).

As far as "foreigners" are concerned, this is a Red Herring. The previous Sovereign Power over Palestine agreed to the National Home and the immigration. Nothing associated with the immigration can be considered improper as it was part and parcel, an agreed upon consequence.

Also notice that you are trying to retroactively apply the 1970 Resolution to events that happened in 1948, two decades before the GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) was adopted. Even if we discount that space-time travel thing, nothing in the Resolution 2625 (XXV) changes the functions, power, and authority of the GA and Trustee Council in the administration of a Trusteeship (Mandate) over the Ottoman relinquished territory. Nothing about "external interference" restricts the UN GA over its responsibilities and duties in that regard under the charter. The UN Charter/Covenant, the Treaty, and the Mandate, all work together. If anything, the greater violator of Resolution 2625 (XXV) has been on the Arab/Palestinian side (retroactively speaking). It was they that initiated that sent border crossing armies into Israel on multiple occasions. After all, GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) is all about principles that settle disputes by peaceful means and in such a manner that peace and security do not require the intervention of 5 Arab Armies.

I find it rather amusing that the Palestinian try to use the very western laws and concepts that establish and record these principles, yet ignore the basic underlying factors that caused the dispute. The Arab argues that the Jewish did not have the right to self-determination [(1) established a sovereign and independent state;]; that being exclusive to the Arab, and attempt to use some creative accounting to demonstrate that Israel got more more out of the Mandate than did the Arab; even to the point of conveniently forgetting that Jordan was 75% of the original mandate; that became an independent Arab State. (We call that fraud.)

The Arab/Palestinian originally disagreed with the entire idea of a Jewish national home in the region. They wanted it all for themselves. Everything that follows is merely fallout and rationalization of their goal to "oppose the entire concept of a Jewish national home" in the region. All this nonsense about self-determination, eternal interference, apartheid and segregation, entanglements with the charter, treaty, mandate, occupation ---- all this is nothing but to cover the the inordinate desire to possess that which was not theirs to begin with; this being the behavior of the Arab Palestinian. They simply want it all, and think of the land as exclusively theirs.

The Arab/Palestinian, and their Persian friends, all have the same preliminary objective, to create such turmoil and chaos in the region, as to destabilize Israel; simply because in their extreme desire for more than one's proper share --- they want it all. At least Hamas and Hezbollah are honest about it and don't try to use subterfuge in the matter.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a case for recompense, restitution, and reparations? ---- They have, probably, a very good case in some instances.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a cause of action on the matter of territorial dispute? Clearly they do.​

But it must also be remembered that it was the Arab/Palestinian that immediately jumped to the use of force as a first solution, and not the Israeli. And it have been the Arab/Palestinian that has continued the path to armed hostilities and aggression as the primary option --- and not the Israeli. There is certainly some restitution due the Israeli for the hostile actions and horrific events it has had to endure during the term of this dispute.

Both sides have committed grievous errors. Neither side has clean hands. Both sides have suffered. Both sides will need time to heal.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, you have all of Israel's propaganda crap down pat.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I thought you would never get there for a moment.

In every one of your posts you try to justify the denial of the Palestinian's rights by saying these foreigners did this and those foreigners did that. Foreigners, foreigners, foreigners!

What part of without external interference, confuses you?

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the Palestinians declined to accept and independent state, as offered by the UN General Assembly, in GA Resolution 181(II). They had the right (of self-determination) and they (determined to) rejected the offer. [(1) established a sovereign and independent state;] The Arab/Palestinian was wanted more than they were allotted by the UN GA. And when they could not get it, tried (not once, not twice, but three times) to take what they were not allotted by force, with the assistance of external force and interference (Armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt).

As far as "foreigners" are concerned, this is a Red Herring. The previous Sovereign Power over Palestine agreed to the National Home and the immigration. Nothing associated with the immigration can be considered improper as it was part and parcel, an agreed upon consequence.

Also notice that you are trying to retroactively apply the 1970 Resolution to events that happened in 1948, two decades before the GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) was adopted. Even if we discount that space-time travel thing, nothing in the Resolution 2625 (XXV) changes the functions, power, and authority of the GA and Trustee Council in the administration of a Trusteeship (Mandate) over the Ottoman relinquished territory. Nothing about "external interference" restricts the UN GA over its responsibilities and duties in that regard under the charter. The UN Charter/Covenant, the Treaty, and the Mandate, all work together. If anything, the greater violator of Resolution 2625 (XXV) has been on the Arab/Palestinian side (retroactively speaking). It was they that initiated that sent border crossing armies into Israel on multiple occasions. After all, GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) is all about principles that settle disputes by peaceful means and in such a manner that peace and security do not require the intervention of 5 Arab Armies.

I find it rather amusing that the Palestinian try to use the very western laws and concepts that establish and record these principles, yet ignore the basic underlying factors that caused the dispute. The Arab argues that the Jewish did not have the right to self-determination [(1) established a sovereign and independent state;]; that being exclusive to the Arab, and attempt to use some creative accounting to demonstrate that Israel got more more out of the Mandate than did the Arab; even to the point of conveniently forgetting that Jordan was 75% of the original mandate; that became an independent Arab State. (We call that fraud.)

The Arab/Palestinian originally disagreed with the entire idea of a Jewish national home in the region. They wanted it all for themselves. Everything that follows is merely fallout and rationalization of their goal to "oppose the entire concept of a Jewish national home" in the region. All this nonsense about self-determination, eternal interference, apartheid and segregation, entanglements with the charter, treaty, mandate, occupation ---- all this is nothing but to cover the the inordinate desire to possess that which was not theirs to begin with; this being the behavior of the Arab Palestinian. They simply want it all, and think of the land as exclusively theirs.

The Arab/Palestinian, and their Persian friends, all have the same preliminary objective, to create such turmoil and chaos in the region, as to destabilize Israel; simply because in their extreme desire for more than one's proper share --- they want it all. At least Hamas and Hezbollah are honest about it and don't try to use subterfuge in the matter.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a case for recompense, restitution, and reparations? ---- They have, probably, a very good case in some instances.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a cause of action on the matter of territorial dispute? Clearly they do.​

But it must also be remembered that it was the Arab/Palestinian that immediately jumped to the use of force as a first solution, and not the Israeli. And it have been the Arab/Palestinian that has continued the path to armed hostilities and aggression as the primary option --- and not the Israeli. There is certainly some restitution due the Israeli for the hostile actions and horrific events it has had to endure during the term of this dispute.

Both sides have committed grievous errors. Neither side has clean hands. Both sides have suffered. Both sides will need time to heal.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, you have all of Israel's propaganda crap down pat.

Wow!!! I never knew UN documents were Israeli propaganda!! Will wonders never cease?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I thought you would never get there for a moment.


(COMMENT)

You will notice that the Palestinians declined to accept and independent state, as offered by the UN General Assembly, in GA Resolution 181(II). They had the right (of self-determination) and they (determined to) rejected the offer. [(1) established a sovereign and independent state;] The Arab/Palestinian was wanted more than they were allotted by the UN GA. And when they could not get it, tried (not once, not twice, but three times) to take what they were not allotted by force, with the assistance of external force and interference (Armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt).

As far as "foreigners" are concerned, this is a Red Herring. The previous Sovereign Power over Palestine agreed to the National Home and the immigration. Nothing associated with the immigration can be considered improper as it was part and parcel, an agreed upon consequence.

Also notice that you are trying to retroactively apply the 1970 Resolution to events that happened in 1948, two decades before the GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) was adopted. Even if we discount that space-time travel thing, nothing in the Resolution 2625 (XXV) changes the functions, power, and authority of the GA and Trustee Council in the administration of a Trusteeship (Mandate) over the Ottoman relinquished territory. Nothing about "external interference" restricts the UN GA over its responsibilities and duties in that regard under the charter. The UN Charter/Covenant, the Treaty, and the Mandate, all work together. If anything, the greater violator of Resolution 2625 (XXV) has been on the Arab/Palestinian side (retroactively speaking). It was they that initiated that sent border crossing armies into Israel on multiple occasions. After all, GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) is all about principles that settle disputes by peaceful means and in such a manner that peace and security do not require the intervention of 5 Arab Armies.

I find it rather amusing that the Palestinian try to use the very western laws and concepts that establish and record these principles, yet ignore the basic underlying factors that caused the dispute. The Arab argues that the Jewish did not have the right to self-determination [(1) established a sovereign and independent state;]; that being exclusive to the Arab, and attempt to use some creative accounting to demonstrate that Israel got more more out of the Mandate than did the Arab; even to the point of conveniently forgetting that Jordan was 75% of the original mandate; that became an independent Arab State. (We call that fraud.)

The Arab/Palestinian originally disagreed with the entire idea of a Jewish national home in the region. They wanted it all for themselves. Everything that follows is merely fallout and rationalization of their goal to "oppose the entire concept of a Jewish national home" in the region. All this nonsense about self-determination, eternal interference, apartheid and segregation, entanglements with the charter, treaty, mandate, occupation ---- all this is nothing but to cover the the inordinate desire to possess that which was not theirs to begin with; this being the behavior of the Arab Palestinian. They simply want it all, and think of the land as exclusively theirs.

The Arab/Palestinian, and their Persian friends, all have the same preliminary objective, to create such turmoil and chaos in the region, as to destabilize Israel; simply because in their extreme desire for more than one's proper share --- they want it all. At least Hamas and Hezbollah are honest about it and don't try to use subterfuge in the matter.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a case for recompense, restitution, and reparations? ---- They have, probably, a very good case in some instances.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a cause of action on the matter of territorial dispute? Clearly they do.​

But it must also be remembered that it was the Arab/Palestinian that immediately jumped to the use of force as a first solution, and not the Israeli. And it have been the Arab/Palestinian that has continued the path to armed hostilities and aggression as the primary option --- and not the Israeli. There is certainly some restitution due the Israeli for the hostile actions and horrific events it has had to endure during the term of this dispute.

Both sides have committed grievous errors. Neither side has clean hands. Both sides have suffered. Both sides will need time to heal.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, you have all of Israel's propaganda crap down pat.

Wow!!! I never knew UN documents were Israeli propaganda!! Will wonders never cease?

Specifically, what are you referring to?

 

[Hossfly]

WOW, you have all of Israel's propaganda crap down pat.

Wow!!! I never knew UN documents were Israeli propaganda!! Will wonders never cease?

Specifically, what are you referring to?

Rocco's facts. Check!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wow!!! I never knew UN documents were Israeli propaganda!! Will wonders never cease?

Specifically, what are you referring to?

Rocco's facts. Check!

Name one or two.

 

[toastman]

Tinnie up to his usual nonsense lol... Can't you read Tinnnie ??

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinnie up to his usual nonsense lol... Can't you read Tinnnie ??

Sure, read what?

 

[Hossfly]

Specifically, what are you referring to?

Rocco's facts. Check!

Name one or two.

It appears that Rocco has the real scoop and you have "Arab facts" from your employer. Don't worry, Tinnie, by now I think the readers realize that you will never accept a country called Israel even though there is such a country.

Check!

 

[Hossfly]

Tinnie up to his usual nonsense lol... Can't you read Tinnnie ??

Sure, read what?

We've been discussing Ladies Home Journal, Abu?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco's facts. Check!

Name one or two.

It appears that Rocco has the real scoop and you have "Arab facts" from your employer. Don't worry, Tinnie, by now I think the readers realize that you will never accept a country called Israel even though there is such a country.

Check!

Really, like what?

 

[toastman]

Tinnie has his back to the wall hahaha. Look at him squirm

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinnie has his back to the wall hahaha. Look at him squirm

Why? Because I can't answer the questions that you people have not been asking.

 

[toastman]

Tinnie has his back to the wall hahaha. Look at him squirm

Why? Because I can't answer the questions that you people have not been asking.

Because you can't disprove anything Rocco said

 

[Billo_Really]

Because you can't disprove anything Rocco said

Give me 3 specific examples of what you're talking about.

 

[toastman]

I'm not doing your homework for you loiney. Go read the last few pages....

Prove to me that he proved Rocco wrong

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm not doing your homework for you loiney. Go read the last few pages....

Prove to me that he proved Rocco wrong

It has nothing to do with "my" homework.

You made a claim, back it up!