The Balfour Declaration

[P F Tinmore]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

 

[Shusha]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

 

[P F Tinmore]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.

 

[Shusha]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.

The creation of the government in Israel (Palestine) for the Jewish people based on their existing rights was an internationally sanctioned and approved event (aka international law) as per the Mandate (again, I refer you to Articles 4 and 11).

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[theliq]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.

The creation of the government in Israel (Palestine) for the Jewish people based on their existing rights was an internationally sanctioned and approved event (aka international law) as per the Mandate (again, I refer you to Articles 4 and 11).

Israel declared Statehood illegally as it was not ratified by the Security Council thus Israel was an illegal entity

 

[P F Tinmore]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.

The creation of the government in Israel (Palestine) for the Jewish people based on their existing rights was an internationally sanctioned and approved event (aka international law) as per the Mandate (again, I refer you to Articles 4 and 11).

No mention of a Jewish state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.

The creation of the government in Israel (Palestine) for the Jewish people based on their existing rights was an internationally sanctioned and approved event (aka international law) as per the Mandate (again, I refer you to Articles 4 and 11).

Israel declared Statehood illegally as it was not ratified by the Security Council thus Israel was an illegal entity

Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

 

[Shusha]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.

The creation of the government in Israel (Palestine) for the Jewish people based on their existing rights was an internationally sanctioned and approved event (aka international law) as per the Mandate (again, I refer you to Articles 4 and 11).

No mention of a Jewish state.

There is a clear prescription for a Jewish government for a Jewish national home. Its on you to prove that though the Jewish people were to have a national home (not just civil and religious rights -- but a national home) and they were to govern that national home but that the Jewish people were prohibited (and still are prohibited) from having national self-determination and sovereignty in the form of a State.

 

[Hollie]

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.

The creation of the government in Israel (Palestine) for the Jewish people based on their existing rights was an internationally sanctioned and approved event (aka international law) as per the Mandate (again, I refer you to Articles 4 and 11).

Israel declared Statehood illegally as it was not ratified by the Security Council thus Israel was an illegal entity

Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

Indeed, you are so silly. It’s always worth a chuckle when you rattle on about international laws which you dont understand.

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

Oh please. Name them.

 

[Hollie]

1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.

The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.

The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory. It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11). Those are the powers of a State. That is the formation of a State. There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.

False.

Dont you think it’s wise to know the facts as opposed to repeating falsehoods?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

Oh please. Name them.

Acquiring territory through military aggression.
Military attacks on civilians.
Moving your own people onto occupied territory.
Denationalizing citizens due to religion.
Ethnic cleansing.
Destruction of private property.

There my be more.

 

[Hollie]

Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

Oh please. Name them.

Acquiring territory through military aggression.
Military attacks on civilians.
Moving your own people onto occupied territory.
Denationalizing citizens due to religion.
Ethnic cleansing.
Destruction of private property.

There my be more.

You cut and pasted a laundry list of Islamist aggressions in 1948.

Oops.

 

[Shusha]

The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

Acquiring territory through military aggression

-- Israel acquired territory through legal means according to the laws of the territory at the time. (ie the Mandate we've been discussing. Well, that I've been presenting and you've been ignoring.)

Military attacks on civilians

-- while attacks on civilians ARE a violation of international law -- this does not make the creation of a State which in breach of law a violation of international law and is therefore irrelevant.

Moving your own people onto occupied territory.

-- there was no occupied territory in 1948 when Israel was created. Immigration of Jews to the Jewish national homeland was permitted by international agreement (law). IF this is a violation (and I argue that it is not) it occurred AFTER the creation of Israel and is therefore irrelevant to the question.

Denationalizing citizens due to religion.

-- Israel did no such thing.

Ethnic cleansing

. -- I'd argue that Israel's actions were in keeping with normative warfare at the time of her creation. BUT even still this does not make the creation of the State of Israel illegal.

Destruction of private property.

-- again, while this is a violation of international law, -- this does not make the creation of Israel a violation of international law and is therefore irrelevant.


I think there is a confusion in the way you stated your remark. You said, "The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws." I took this to mean that the act of creating a state (Israel) was illegal.

But I think now, what you meant to say is that Israel (and the government acting on behalf of the Jewish people) committed some acts which were in violation of international law at the time.[/quote]

 

[P F Tinmore]

The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

Acquiring territory through military aggression

-- Israel acquired territory through legal means according to the laws of the territory at the time. (ie the Mandate we've been discussing. Well, that I've been presenting and you've been ignoring.)

Military attacks on civilians

-- while attacks on civilians ARE a violation of international law -- this does not make the creation of a State which in breach of law a violation of international law and is therefore irrelevant.

Moving your own people onto occupied territory.

-- there was no occupied territory in 1948 when Israel was created. Immigration of Jews to the Jewish national homeland was permitted by international agreement (law). IF this is a violation (and I argue that it is not) it occurred AFTER the creation of Israel and is therefore irrelevant to the question.

Denationalizing citizens due to religion.

-- Israel did no such thing.

Ethnic cleansing

. -- I'd argue that Israel's actions were in keeping with normative warfare at the time of her creation. BUT even still this does not make the creation of the State of Israel illegal.

Destruction of private property.

-- again, while this is a violation of international law, -- this does not make the creation of Israel a violation of international law and is therefore irrelevant.


I think there is a confusion in the way you stated your remark. You said, "The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws." I took this to mean that the act of creating a state (Israel) was illegal.

But I think now, what you meant to say is that Israel (and the government acting on behalf of the Jewish people) committed some acts which were in violation of international law at the time.

Israel could not be a state without these violations. These are not side issues, they are the core of Israel's existence.

 

[Shusha]

The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

Acquiring territory through military aggression

-- Israel acquired territory through legal means according to the laws of the territory at the time. (ie the Mandate we've been discussing. Well, that I've been presenting and you've been ignoring.)

Military attacks on civilians

-- while attacks on civilians ARE a violation of international law -- this does not make the creation of a State which in breach of law a violation of international law and is therefore irrelevant.

Moving your own people onto occupied territory.

-- there was no occupied territory in 1948 when Israel was created. Immigration of Jews to the Jewish national homeland was permitted by international agreement (law). IF this is a violation (and I argue that it is not) it occurred AFTER the creation of Israel and is therefore irrelevant to the question.

Denationalizing citizens due to religion.

-- Israel did no such thing.

Ethnic cleansing

. -- I'd argue that Israel's actions were in keeping with normative warfare at the time of her creation. BUT even still this does not make the creation of the State of Israel illegal.

Destruction of private property.

-- again, while this is a violation of international law, -- this does not make the creation of Israel a violation of international law and is therefore irrelevant.


I think there is a confusion in the way you stated your remark. You said, "The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws." I took this to mean that the act of creating a state (Israel) was illegal.

But I think now, what you meant to say is that Israel (and the government acting on behalf of the Jewish people) committed some acts which were in violation of international law at the time.

Israel could not be a state without these violations. These are not side issues, they are the core of Israel's existence.

Of course Israel could have been created without violating international law. The very basis of international law is peaceful agreements between States.

There is nothing inherently illegal in the creation of a new State.

 

[thetor]

A new permanent exhibition highlights the British PM's unflinching support for the Jewish state -- even under heavy pressure from his government

(full article online)

Ahead of Balfour 100, UK enshrines Churchill’s headstrong case for Israel

I note that all the participants,Balfours great nephew,Teresa May and Nit and Yar, Who ARE ALL JEWS ...I rest my case and WIN AS USUAL

 

[thetor]

A new permanent exhibition highlights the British PM's unflinching support for the Jewish state -- even under heavy pressure from his government

(full article online)

Ahead of Balfour 100, UK enshrines Churchill’s headstrong case for Israel

Sense Against Simian

Some of us think Churchill was a great man and will be convinced by his support of them that the Israelis must be right. Other posters think Osama bin Laden was a great man.

When one needs to compare the head of a democratic nation with a terrorist of no Nation except the Islamic nation........and head of nothing but murderers, or thousands of civilian lives.......

Enough said....

But when YOU were NO NATION,YOU WERE THE WORST TERRORISTS,THE ZIONIST SCUM that were taught by the NAZIS

 

[theliq]

Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.

Oh please. Name them.

Try These
www.truetorahjews.org/naziismzionism
www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html


Read properly and you will see what DECEITFUL AND LYING TRASH THESE TERRORIST ZIONISTS ARE....They murdered their own creed to advance their CULT & TERRORISM

God Bless The Palestinians for fighting against these Barbarians