Stats About Israeli And Palestinian In ME

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations

Considering the UN Security Council never validated this change Israel is UNLAWFUL

WHY they dont have that authority, and this would also make Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Iran UNLAWFUL as the UN never validated those nations either when they became independent after 1945. ( the UN was created before even one of these nations became independent if you bother to look )

Want to tell your islamonazi handlers that you have decided that the truth applies to everyone ?

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations

Considering the UN Security Council never validated this change Israel is UNLAWFUL

WHY they dont have that authority, and this would also make Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Iran UNLAWFUL as the UN never validated those nations either when they became independent after 1945. ( the UN was created before even one of these nations became independent if you bother to look )

Want to tell your islamonazi handlers that you have decided that the truth applies to everyone ?

You are right probably Pheo,but this is an Israel/Pali thread,with respect .....steve

And Pheo...cut all this "Islamo"nonsense Ta

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

Of course not. I'm not saying that anything negates the rights of the Palestinians. But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

You are doing it by claiming that Israel was illegally created. You are claiming that the thing which was illegal was "giving people the boot". Since people "got the boot" in other countries which were created during the same time frame, through the same existing international law, and through mostly the same legal instruments -- your claim of illegality extends to many other countries, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

So what should we do with all these illegal nations?

But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

Not so. I have upheld those rights.

LIAR


You have constantly denied them these rights every time you claim Israel is an illegal state. remember their RIGHTS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO FORM A NATION IN PALESTINE JUST AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID WITH JORDAN. They also included the right to evict enemy nationals from their lands.


SO JUST WHEN AND HOW HAVE YOU UPHELD THE JEWS RIGHTS TO THEIR HOMELAND GRANTED UNDER THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN

THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN​

Link with passage?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations

Considering the UN Security Council never validated this change Israel is UNLAWFUL

WHY they dont have that authority, and this would also make Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Iran UNLAWFUL as the UN never validated those nations either when they became independent after 1945. ( the UN was created before even one of these nations became independent if you bother to look )

Want to tell your islamonazi handlers that you have decided that the truth applies to everyone ?

There was no change in those other countries so there was validation required.

 

[RoccoR]

theliq, Phoenall, Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yah --- I've seen this response before.

P F Tinmore
I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations

Considering the UN Security Council never validated this change Israel is UNLAWFUL

(COMMENT)

First-off, there is no such thing as a "legal 'vs' Illegal" establishment of sovereignty. The people (through their own self-determination) make an attempt. It is either successful or unsuccessful. Success is a matter of control, the ability to extend is sovereignty over a specific territory.

NOTE: The resolution admits Israel in the UN and recalls the November 29, 1947 and December 11, 1948 resolutions.--- UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (Iii), Israel
​

ARTICLE 6: The Convention of the Rights and Duties of a State
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

NOTE: This is very important. Once recognition (express or tacit) is extended, it cannot be taken back.
​

ARTICLE 7 The Convention of the Rights and Duties of a State
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.
​

The Security Council does not need to validate anything (not even my parking). Just like in the case of "Jordan" (just as an example), HM The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, (who also was the Monarch of the Mandatory over the territories subject to the Mandate for Palestine) made the decision. The UN Security Council gave the tacit approval (understood or implied without being stated) for the full independence granted in the Treaty of Alliance between the UK and the Emir of Trans-Jordan:

ARTICLE 1(1) "His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."

From the Official History: Page Making of Trans-Jordan: "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."
​

The UN Security Council has no special powers to grant sovereignty. It is the concept of self-determination (choosing their own destiny) and the ability to stand on their own that makes the difference --- making of a nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations

Considering the UN Security Council never validated this change Israel is UNLAWFUL

WHY they dont have that authority, and this would also make Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Iran UNLAWFUL as the UN never validated those nations either when they became independent after 1945. ( the UN was created before even one of these nations became independent if you bother to look )

Want to tell your islamonazi handlers that you have decided that the truth applies to everyone ?

You are right probably Pheo,but this is an Israel/Pali thread,with respect .....steve

And Pheo...cut all this "Islamo"nonsense Ta

And this deals with the remit of the thread

I will when you stop all your anti semitic Jew hatred and wake up to the reality of Israel being created in 1923 under the same international laws that created every islamonazi nation in the M.E.

 

[Phoenall]

Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

Of course not. I'm not saying that anything negates the rights of the Palestinians. But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

You are doing it by claiming that Israel was illegally created. You are claiming that the thing which was illegal was "giving people the boot". Since people "got the boot" in other countries which were created during the same time frame, through the same existing international law, and through mostly the same legal instruments -- your claim of illegality extends to many other countries, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

So what should we do with all these illegal nations?

But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

Not so. I have upheld those rights.

LIAR


You have constantly denied them these rights every time you claim Israel is an illegal state. remember their RIGHTS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO FORM A NATION IN PALESTINE JUST AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID WITH JORDAN. They also included the right to evict enemy nationals from their lands.


SO JUST WHEN AND HOW HAVE YOU UPHELD THE JEWS RIGHTS TO THEIR HOMELAND GRANTED UNDER THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN

THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN​

Link with passage?

Mandate of palestine for the 100th time. it still says the same thing as it did Wednesday, Monday and every time you asked for it over the last 5 years.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations

Considering the UN Security Council never validated this change Israel is UNLAWFUL

WHY they dont have that authority, and this would also make Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Iran UNLAWFUL as the UN never validated those nations either when they became independent after 1945. ( the UN was created before even one of these nations became independent if you bother to look )

Want to tell your islamonazi handlers that you have decided that the truth applies to everyone ?

There was no change in those other countries so there was validation required.

Apart from the fact prior to the treaty of Lausanne they did not exist as countries with a valid government until the LoN created the various MANDATES in the M.E. 2 run by France, 2 run by Britain and 1 run by Russia

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

Of course not. I'm not saying that anything negates the rights of the Palestinians. But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

You are doing it by claiming that Israel was illegally created. You are claiming that the thing which was illegal was "giving people the boot". Since people "got the boot" in other countries which were created during the same time frame, through the same existing international law, and through mostly the same legal instruments -- your claim of illegality extends to many other countries, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

So what should we do with all these illegal nations?

But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

Not so. I have upheld those rights.

LIAR


You have constantly denied them these rights every time you claim Israel is an illegal state. remember their RIGHTS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO FORM A NATION IN PALESTINE JUST AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID WITH JORDAN. They also included the right to evict enemy nationals from their lands.


SO JUST WHEN AND HOW HAVE YOU UPHELD THE JEWS RIGHTS TO THEIR HOMELAND GRANTED UNDER THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN

THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN​

Link with passage?

Mandate of palestine for the 100th time. it still says the same thing as it did Wednesday, Monday and every time you asked for it over the last 5 years.

You could say it 100 times more and it will still not make it true.

"Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations." The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of... peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

What the Court seemed to be doing, then, was to construct the concept of a "sacred trust," the origins of which were rooted in the Mandate system, as the common denominator of all situations where people are not self-governing, occupation included.

That construction is facilitated by the historical fact that Palestine was a Mandate territory, and that the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rested in the dissolution of the Mandate.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

 

[Phoenall]

Of course not. I'm not saying that anything negates the rights of the Palestinians. But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

You are doing it by claiming that Israel was illegally created. You are claiming that the thing which was illegal was "giving people the boot". Since people "got the boot" in other countries which were created during the same time frame, through the same existing international law, and through mostly the same legal instruments -- your claim of illegality extends to many other countries, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

So what should we do with all these illegal nations?

But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

Not so. I have upheld those rights.

LIAR


You have constantly denied them these rights every time you claim Israel is an illegal state. remember their RIGHTS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO FORM A NATION IN PALESTINE JUST AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID WITH JORDAN. They also included the right to evict enemy nationals from their lands.


SO JUST WHEN AND HOW HAVE YOU UPHELD THE JEWS RIGHTS TO THEIR HOMELAND GRANTED UNDER THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN

THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN​

Link with passage?

Mandate of palestine for the 100th time. it still says the same thing as it did Wednesday, Monday and every time you asked for it over the last 5 years.

You could say it 100 times more and it will still not make it true.

"Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations." The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of... peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

What the Court seemed to be doing, then, was to construct the concept of a "sacred trust," the origins of which were rooted in the Mandate system, as the common denominator of all situations where people are not self-governing, occupation included.

That construction is facilitated by the historical fact that Palestine was a Mandate territory, and that the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rested in the dissolution of the Mandate.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

And again you rely on islamonazi propaganda and talking points as your only evidence, what you produce is not supported in any laws. All it does is bash the Jews and demonise Israel so you use it as if it is an internationally respected law.



Still does not answer the question WHY DO YOU DENY THE JEWS THE SAME RIGHTS YOU DEMAND BE HANDED TO THE ARAB MUSLIM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON A PLATE

 

[Hollie]

Of course not. I'm not saying that anything negates the rights of the Palestinians. But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

You are doing it by claiming that Israel was illegally created. You are claiming that the thing which was illegal was "giving people the boot". Since people "got the boot" in other countries which were created during the same time frame, through the same existing international law, and through mostly the same legal instruments -- your claim of illegality extends to many other countries, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

So what should we do with all these illegal nations?

But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

Not so. I have upheld those rights.

LIAR


You have constantly denied them these rights every time you claim Israel is an illegal state. remember their RIGHTS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO FORM A NATION IN PALESTINE JUST AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID WITH JORDAN. They also included the right to evict enemy nationals from their lands.


SO JUST WHEN AND HOW HAVE YOU UPHELD THE JEWS RIGHTS TO THEIR HOMELAND GRANTED UNDER THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN

THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN​

Link with passage?

Mandate of palestine for the 100th time. it still says the same thing as it did Wednesday, Monday and every time you asked for it over the last 5 years.

You could say it 100 times more and it will still not make it true.

"Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations." The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of... peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

What the Court seemed to be doing, then, was to construct the concept of a "sacred trust," the origins of which were rooted in the Mandate system, as the common denominator of all situations where people are not self-governing, occupation included.

That construction is facilitated by the historical fact that Palestine was a Mandate territory, and that the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rested in the dissolution of the Mandate.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

What the Court seemed to be doing, then, was to construct the concept of a "sacred trust," the origins of which were rooted in the Mandate system, as the common denominator of all situations where people are not self-governing, occupation included.

Indeed, scouring the web may eventually find an opinion that agrees with your own.

It's just a shame for you that such conjecture as "What the Court seemed to be doing..." does nothing to support your whining about the past and the success of the Jewish State as opposed to the failures of the Islamist mini-caliphates.

"What the Court seemed to be doing..." is simply conjecture after the fact and an attempt to retroactively apply opinions to events that conflict with your personal biases.