The difference between anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel

[Mindful]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

With all due respect, I'm not comfortable arguing this topic with you.

So therefore I'm not going to.

You're choice but frankly I don't understand why you come into these debates with little sniping comments directed all around at those you disagree with, but then "don't want to argue" topics that you start. With all due respect of course.

Well that was pleasant, and over personal. Not nice atall.

The reason I don't want to engage with you, and you didn't even want to know why; is firstly, you are a mod. And secondly, I can't get a handle on your arguments. Full of logical fallacies and straw men, there is no firm basis of accuracy with regard to what you write about.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

Only because you are not listening. Where have I said that Israel is resisting anything? Or that Israel's resistance is legitmate and Palestine's is not?

Resistance is either legitimate or illegitimate. And in order not to be anti-semitic it must apply to both peoples equally.

IF Palestine claims the territory and it is legitimate to resist occupation then it is equally legitimate for Israel to claim the territory and resist occupation. Every action taken by either group is thus legitimized (as long as it doesn't target civilians).

If we agree, in principle, that EACH group has the right to self-determination then its just a border dispute -- which territory is yours and which is mine? And THAT is a simple exercise in treaty negotiation.

The ONLY way for you to argue that Palestinians have a unilateral right to resist is to argue that the borders have already been set and that Israel is unilaterally encroaching upon Palestinian territory (a position absolutely untenable in law and so clear that even Tinman and I agree on it).

Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922. They are referenced in the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements which took place almost a year after the Mandate left Palestine. There has been no treaty changing those borders.

 

[Phoenall]

Would you have said that to the Jews who were fighting the British?
What about the French resistance (and the other national resistance movements) fighting Nazi occupation?
What about the countries that rose up against Soviet occupation?
How about the current conflict in Iraq and Syria where ISIS is occupying territory?

Well, remember I reject the idea that a Palestine exists and the idea that this non-existent entity is "occupied". (Yes, I am aware what the international community thinks about that).

An existing nation invading another existing nation is not the same thing as independence movements and fledgling nations. The current conflict is the result of two independence movements in conflict over territory at best, and the anti-semitic rejection of one independence movement, at worst.

I don't quite agree here though...I'll grant I think the IP situation is unique to some degree because of it's origins, and territory that has never been legally resolved.

Most of the Palestinians are resisting Israeli control over territory they had claimed and that later Israel took in a war initiated by the Arabs. I think that is legitimate resistance in the same way as any other resistance movement as long as civilians aren't the target. Now the segment of Palestinians that want to irradicate Israel, that is different - but I'm talking about the ones that have been fighting for a two-state solution. If Israel's independence movement is legitimized but the Palestinians is denied, then it seems to me that the Palestinians are being treated as a seperate class.

There is no occupation because there is no, and has never been any, settlement of which territory actually belongs to which existing or non-existing entity. That is the fundamental dispute. And that dispute can only be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

It's debatable in my opinion. If there is no occupation why are Palestinian minors adjucated under Israeli Military law?

Unless you are of the mind that Israel has no right to exist. In which case, Israel is the nation with a right to resist its own destruction.

Not at all, but I think the Palestinians have a right to resist the Israeli's in what they claim as their territory for the second state. It may benefit them - but it is their right.

They had no legal rights to claim the land as they turned down both the LoN mandate and the UN partition plan. That was the end of their rights on that matter. It is not legitimate resistance as it is based on breaches of the UN charter, IHL, Geneva conventions and International laws. The segment of Palestine they have illegally claimed as theirs is part of Israel, which is why they have never delineated their borders to the UN, and why they have refused to exercise their right to self determination. They know they will have to face the legal might of the ICC/ICJ and they don't have any where near enough Islamic judges in place yet to get a verdict in their favour.


Because that is how International law works, until there is a legal adjudication then there will not be any resolution.


How can they claim what was given to the Jews under International law in 1923, after stating they would fight until every Jew was gone and Israel was destroyed. They have no legal rights to the land, if they do then Israel can claim all of Jerusalem and part of the Jordan valley under the same rules

 

[Phoenall]

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

Only because you are not listening. Where have I said that Israel is resisting anything? Or that Israel's resistance is legitmate and Palestine's is not?

Resistance is either legitimate or illegitimate. And in order not to be anti-semitic it must apply to both peoples equally.

IF Palestine claims the territory and it is legitimate to resist occupation then it is equally legitimate for Israel to claim the territory and resist occupation. Every action taken by either group is thus legitimized (as long as it doesn't target civilians).

If we agree, in principle, that EACH group has the right to self-determination then its just a border dispute -- which territory is yours and which is mine? And THAT is a simple exercise in treaty negotiation.

The ONLY way for you to argue that Palestinians have a unilateral right to resist is to argue that the borders have already been set and that Israel is unilaterally encroaching upon Palestinian territory (a position absolutely untenable in law and so clear that even Tinman and I agree on it).

Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922. They are referenced in the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements which took place almost a year after the Mandate left Palestine. There has been no treaty changing those borders.

WRONG AGAIN as you have been told. The actual wording is " the borders of the mandate of Palestine, to be known as Palestine" No mention of the nation of Palestine in the treaty delineating the borders.


AS YOU SAY THERE HAS BEEN NO TREATY CHANGING THE BORDERS OF THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE. BUT THERE HAS CHANGING THE BORDERS BETWEEN ISREAL AND ITS NEIGHBOURS JORDAN AND EGYPT.



NEXT

 

[Challenger]

While the non-binding Resolution does say that, nowhere in the text does it say anything about either Israel or Palestine; or the applicability of this Resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Do international laws have to specify which countries they apply to, or are they considered universal?

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, P F Tinmore, Shusha, --- et al,

While this may sound correct to some, it certainly has flaws in the recitation.

It took territory in a war and occupied it. Now, it is not occupied but disputed and the Palestinians don't have the right to resist.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is illegal to acquire land by war.

(COMMENT)

This idea --- that It is illegal to annex occupied territory or acquire land by force is an oversimplification of the The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) (AKA: Pact of Paris)(Article II: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.) and set the various pledges and frameworks to avoid the use of force and resolve disputes through peaceful means. Essentially, pacts, agreements, treaties and agreements serve to eliminate "War" as a legitimate instrument of Foreign Policy.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica] [/URL]Conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).
Source: Encyclopædia Britannica

Article #43 --- Hague Regulation 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article #47 --- Fourth Geneva Convention states that “Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
​

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

Not really ---- two different standard; merely two different interpretations on the application of 21th century

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

No mention of the 1 million Jewish refugees that were disenfranchised of their lands and property by the arab muslims. The Palestinians were involved in this and had laws made to stop the Jews from reclaiming their lands, a pity they lost the land and then lost their protection when they tried to steal Jordan and ended up being kicked out of Jordan.

What property? Are you referring to the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries?

What laws did the Palestinians make?

If you look at the UNWRA method statement you will see that they were expressly told to find new homes for the few Palestinian refugees that were created by the war started by the arab muslims. The arab muslims decided to use the refugees as a propaganda statement and this led to them increasing in number.

Under international law, the refugees were also to have been allowed to return to their homes when the conflict was over.

And yes, I do agree the fact that they are STILL unsettled is partly due to Arab political ambitions.

THEY ARE THE ONLY REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR NUMBERS OVER THE YEARS. ALL OTHERS ARE NOT SEEN AS REFUGEES WHEN THEY BREED, BUT AS CITIZENS OF THE NATION THEY ARE LIVING IN.

Your point? Let me reiterate - I don't believe in intergenerational rights for refugees.

The west bank and gaza were not arab nations and that is where the Jews were forcibly evicted from.

The laws that Jordan passed in respect of the land stolen from the Jews in the west bank. Even your own sides links show that the Jews owned most of the land in and around Jerusalem, and it was taken from them contrary to the LoN mandate, LoN charter, UN charter, UN resolutions and International law. The laws were made for and on the behalf of the new Jordanians who called themselves Palestinians from then on.



Which international law was that then as there is no mention of such a law. What we do find is that it never passed into International law and is a concept denied by the Islamic nations as they would lose too much land if it became law.

Right of return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return, but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]

By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship


So you say that the arab muslims calling themselves Palestinians now have no claim on land in Israel as the ones who did claim it are nearly all dead, and so the Palestinians wars and violence are unfounded

 

[Boston1]

Quote

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory.

End Quote

Way to go Rocco, I've been saying this since day one. Its the Arab Muslims who are Occupying Israel land, not vice versa. Everything west of the Jordan within the British mandate area is available for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and any claims by any other nation or group of people are false. Any occupation of land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland by anyone other than the Judiac people is an illegal occupation.

Free Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel.

Speaking of mythologizing things...this sounds suspiciously like you are justifying the mass explusion and ethnic cleansing of a specific minority ethnic group.

Not at all. But unlike some other refugees - for example, currently in the news is the possible closure of Dadaab, the largest refugee camp of Somali's fleeing the conflict with Al-Shabaab. They have no where to go - no one wants them. Palestinians are in a similar situation - no one wants them and they are barred from going back.

What I do think though, is those that were forceably expelled should get compensation from those who took their property.

Edited to add: Do you realize that this exact argument is used to justify the persecution of the Jewish people in European and other countries today?

Pointing out that the refugees HAD a place to go that WANTED them is justifying persecution?

I would say that they should return to the lands they originally came from before invading Palestine to kill the Jews and deatroy Israel. Then when they were beaten deserted the army they were fighting for and claimed to be refugees. That is the only way the population of the arab muslims could have risen so much between 1947 and 1949, then again in 1967



That is how they Justify the Jew hatred in Eastern Europe today

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well that was pleasant, and over personal. Not nice atall.

The reason I don't want to engage with you, and you didn't even want to know why; is firstly, you are a mod. And secondly, I can't get a handle on your arguments. Full of logical fallacies and straw men, there is no firm basis of accuracy with regard to what you write about.

Here is a link you may find helpful by way of understanding the internet Jihad she fights.

monomania


As to the difference between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, it is pretty obvious that when a person devotes many hours each day to the pursuit of this one theme, they are not simply criticizing one particular Israeli policy or another -- they have immersed themselves in a world of obsession, preoccupation and paranoia that focuses on Jews as the externalized symbol of all that they fight within.

Israel is a tiny little strip of land representing a flyspeck on the world map, and represents the aspirations of a much besieged people. Classic antisemitism involves characterizing Jews as unduly powerful, manipulative and secretive. When the mentally ill focus all their energies on a perverse brand of internet jihad built upon the transference of all the themes once applied to Jews as individuals to the collective Jew so it is now Israel that is powerful, manipulative and secretive, it is their mania for the subject matter and the themes thus transferred that leave no doubt that they are antisemitic.

They may try to convince themselves that their joining a huge majority as it persecutes a small minority is some sort of great virtue and that the obsession that drives them to devote many, many hours each day towards that persecution is actually some sort of rational response to the world around them, but in reality they are just deeply disturbed individuals with an unhealthy obsession with Jews.

 

[Challenger]

Coyote, P F Tinmore, Shusha, --- et al,

While this may sound correct to some, it certainly has flaws in the recitation.

It took territory in a war and occupied it. Now, it is not occupied but disputed and the Palestinians don't have the right to resist.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is illegal to acquire land by war.

(COMMENT)

This idea --- that It is illegal to annex occupied territory or acquire land by force is an oversimplification of the The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) (AKA: Pact of Paris)(Article II: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.) and set the various pledges and frameworks to avoid the use of force and resolve disputes through peaceful means. Essentially, pacts, agreements, treaties and agreements serve to eliminate "War" as a legitimate instrument of Foreign Policy.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica] [/URL]Conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).
Source: Encyclopædia Britannica

Article #43 --- Hague Regulation 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article #47 --- Fourth Geneva Convention states that “Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
​

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

(COMMENT)

Not really ---- two different standard; merely two different interpretations on the application of 21th century

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Drivel. Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625 (1970)

“No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”

A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

The above was a codification of pre-existing priciples and customary international laws, not to mention SC 242 which clearly states:
"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."

If it was emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war in 1967, the principle must be pre-existing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, P F Tinmore, Shusha, --- et al,

While this may sound correct to some, it certainly has flaws in the recitation.

It took territory in a war and occupied it. Now, it is not occupied but disputed and the Palestinians don't have the right to resist.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is illegal to acquire land by war.

(COMMENT)

This idea --- that It is illegal to annex occupied territory or acquire land by force is an oversimplification of the The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) (AKA: Pact of Paris)(Article II: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.) and set the various pledges and frameworks to avoid the use of force and resolve disputes through peaceful means. Essentially, pacts, agreements, treaties and agreements serve to eliminate "War" as a legitimate instrument of Foreign Policy.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica] [/URL]Conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).
Source: Encyclopædia Britannica

Article #43 --- Hague Regulation 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article #47 --- Fourth Geneva Convention states that “Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
​

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

(COMMENT)

Not really ---- two different standard; merely two different interpretations on the application of 21th century

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.​

Indeed, Egypt did not attempt to annex its occupied territory. The world did not recognize Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank. It remained occupied Palestinian territory. Since Israel took over that occupation in 1967, it is still occupied Palestinian territory. Gaza is still occupied Palestinian territory.

BTW, I have seen nothing in the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements that distinguish between the Palestinian territory occupied by Jordan, occupied by Egypt, or occupied by Israel. They are all identical.

 

[Phoenall]

Supporting the Palestinian right to self determination does not equal antizionism unless it means the irradiation of Israel.

This speaks to my point above in my response to Challenger's post and linked op ed.

One can support the Palestinian right to self determination and ALSO support the Jewish right to self determination and not require the oppression of one over the other. (Exception noted*).

Just so, one can support the Jewish right to self-determination and ALSO support the Palestinian right to self-determination and not require the oppression of one over the other. Its not a zero-sum game where supporting the one means the oppression of the other.

Absolutely agree...

(*But since we are noting exceptions -- please note that the exception is NOT Jewish self-determination but the particular brand of Palestinian self-determination which denies and rejects Jewish self-determination and does actually seek to oppress and prevent Jewish self-determination on lands which have ancestral, historical and religious value to the Jewish people. Its another odd reversal where Zionism is labelled as oppressive, while it is actually only the Palestinians calling for exclusive access to lands and holy sites -- at the expense (oppression) of the Jewish people).

That seems ok - but, what happens when Jewish self-determination seeks to opress and prevent Palestinian self-determination on lands which have ancestral value to the Palestinian people?

How can they oppress and prevent the Palestinian right to self determination when it is a concept and not a tangible thing. And how can the lands have ancestral value when they never saw them until the arrived in the middle of the 20C.

Because most of them have been there long before the 20C.

Then you are saying the population has been stable since the late 1900's and has only risen by about 10% or 15% not the 400% to 600% it has risen in fits and starts at certain periods. Like 1921 civil unrest, 1929 Hebron massacre, 1931 arab riots, 1947 UN partition plan, 1949 war of independence and 1967 6 days war. The evidence of the populating increases by the arab muslims tell the whole story, and they have been increases in the adult population not the overall population. Even Winston Churchill commented in his speech to the house of parliament that the arab muslims were illegally migrating into Palestine in vast numbers because the British were more bothered with Jewish immigration and so ignored the arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

No mention of the 1 million Jewish refugees that were disenfranchised of their lands and property by the arab muslims. The Palestinians were involved in this and had laws made to stop the Jews from reclaiming their lands, a pity they lost the land and then lost their protection when they tried to steal Jordan and ended up being kicked out of Jordan. If you look at the UNWRA method statement you will see that they were expressly told to find new homes for the few Palestinian refugees that were created by the war started by the arab muslims. The arab muslims decided to use the refugees as a propaganda statement and this led to them increasing in number.

THEY ARE THE ONLY REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR NUMBERS OVER THE YEARS. ALL OTHERS ARE NOT SEEN AS REFUGEES WHEN THEY BREED, BUT AS CITIZENS OF THE NATION THEY ARE LIVING IN.

How did the numbers of the orginal Arab refugees swell to more than 1.5 million individuals, I ask myself.

Illegal immigration, deserters from the arab armies and outright lies by UNWRA to get more money out of the UN

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, et al,

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians themselves --- understand what they mean when they say "they have been denied their right of self-determination."

First, let's make sure we understand the terminology:

• Palestine, no matter what the territorial status, is NOT considered among the "Non-Self-Governing Territories" (NSGTs). It is a lawless Arab territory that is not able to stand alone, meeting the old Article 22 Standard (LoN) Covenant. It presents a demonstrated threat to adjacent nation-states. It is completely unable to orchestrate a peaceful change in leadership from one government to the next elected successor.

• Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources (A/RES/51/190) February 1997. The Palestinians claim that the Armistice Lines are not borders. There has been no good faith effort to establish negotiation that would boundaries. Similarly, Syria has made no attempt to find settlements in the territorial dispute.

• Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes (A/RES/50/172), February 1996.

• Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148) February 1994. No Israeli program has denied the Arab Palestinians to exercise their "right to self-determination."

Not in 1948 when they rejected the UN adopted Partition Plan.
Not in 1950 when they voted to become part of Jordan.
Not in 1970 when the Palestinians attempted to overthrow the Jordanian King.
Not in 1988, when they declared independence.
​

• Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (A/RES/15/1514)(1960), where in the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. This is not applicable to Israel. The Jewish State of Israel is more diverse in its population pertaining to race, sex, language or religion.​

How can they oppress and prevent the Palestinian right to self determination when it is a concept and not a tangible thing. And how can the lands have ancestral value when they never saw them until the arrived in the middle of the 20C.

(COMMENT)

This is one of those assets which we are unable to be touched; not having physical presence. One of those intangibles, it the reputation of Jews in Israel, as well as Jews around the world.

These intangibles fall in the area of honesty, integrity, moral judgement and the maintenance of peace. Usually these are diametrically opposed to that held by the opposition.

Most Respectfully,
R

From your link: A/RES/15/1514 - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

1.

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

From: A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

12. Strongly condemns the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia, and South Africa's attempts to dismember its Territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority regime in southern Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights;

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;
----------------------
It seems that your assessment is incorrect.

Nothing to do with Palestine as it was subject to Jordanian rule and so had already exercised self determination. Seems that your ability to take the small steps needed to work out the problem are beyond your capabilities.

Now again WHO HAS STOPPED THE ARAB MUSLIMS FROM EXCERSISING THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION AND HOW ?

 

[Phoenall]

While the non-binding Resolution does say that, nowhere in the text does it say anything about either Israel or Palestine; or the applicability of this Resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Do international laws have to specify which countries they apply to, or are they considered universal?

I could ask you that same question as you deny Israel's rights to be covered by International laws when they support them and defend them when responding to arab muslim war crimes, terrorism and sovereignty.

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, P F Tinmore, Shusha, --- et al,

While this may sound correct to some, it certainly has flaws in the recitation.

It took territory in a war and occupied it. Now, it is not occupied but disputed and the Palestinians don't have the right to resist.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is illegal to acquire land by war.

(COMMENT)

This idea --- that It is illegal to annex occupied territory or acquire land by force is an oversimplification of the The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) (AKA: Pact of Paris)(Article II: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.) and set the various pledges and frameworks to avoid the use of force and resolve disputes through peaceful means. Essentially, pacts, agreements, treaties and agreements serve to eliminate "War" as a legitimate instrument of Foreign Policy.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica] [/URL]Conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).
Source: Encyclopædia Britannica

Article #43 --- Hague Regulation 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article #47 --- Fourth Geneva Convention states that “Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
​

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

(COMMENT)

Not really ---- two different standard; merely two different interpretations on the application of 21th century

Most Respectfully,
R

Drivel. Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625 (1970)

“No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”

A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

The above was a codification of pre-existing priciples and customary international laws, not to mention SC 242 which clearly states:
"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."

If it was emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war in 1967, the principle must be pre-existing.[/QUOTE]







So did not exist until 1970, do tell how it applied in 1967 if it was not international law ?

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, P F Tinmore, Shusha, --- et al,

While this may sound correct to some, it certainly has flaws in the recitation.

It took territory in a war and occupied it. Now, it is not occupied but disputed and the Palestinians don't have the right to resist.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is illegal to acquire land by war.

(COMMENT)

This idea --- that It is illegal to annex occupied territory or acquire land by force is an oversimplification of the The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) (AKA: Pact of Paris)(Article II: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.) and set the various pledges and frameworks to avoid the use of force and resolve disputes through peaceful means. Essentially, pacts, agreements, treaties and agreements serve to eliminate "War" as a legitimate instrument of Foreign Policy.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica] [/URL]Conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).
Source: Encyclopædia Britannica

Article #43 --- Hague Regulation 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article #47 --- Fourth Geneva Convention states that “Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
​

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

(COMMENT)

Not really ---- two different standard; merely two different interpretations on the application of 21th century

Most Respectfully,
R

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.​

Indeed, Egypt did not attempt to annex its occupied territory. The world did not recognize Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank. It remained occupied Palestinian territory. Since Israel took over that occupation in 1967, it is still occupied Palestinian territory. Gaza is still occupied Palestinian territory.

BTW, I have seen nothing in the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements that distinguish between the Palestinian territory occupied by Jordan, occupied by Egypt, or occupied by Israel. They are all identical.[/QUOTE]






When did it become Palestinian territory if they never took it up ? It was not until 1988 that the arab muslims declared a provisional Palestine nation.

WHAT PALESTINIAN TERRITORY WAS OCCUPIED IN 1949 BY Israel IF PALESTINE NEVER TOOK UP SOVEREIGNTY OF ANY LAND

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, P F Tinmore, Shusha, --- et al,

While this may sound correct to some, it certainly has flaws in the recitation.

It took territory in a war and occupied it. Now, it is not occupied but disputed and the Palestinians don't have the right to resist.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is illegal to acquire land by war.

(COMMENT)

This idea --- that It is illegal to annex occupied territory or acquire land by force is an oversimplification of the The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) (AKA: Pact of Paris)(Article II: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.) and set the various pledges and frameworks to avoid the use of force and resolve disputes through peaceful means. Essentially, pacts, agreements, treaties and agreements serve to eliminate "War" as a legitimate instrument of Foreign Policy.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica] [/URL]Conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).
Source: Encyclopædia Britannica

Article #43 --- Hague Regulation 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article #47 --- Fourth Geneva Convention states that “Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
​

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

(COMMENT)

Not really ---- two different standard; merely two different interpretations on the application of 21th century

Most Respectfully,
R

Occupation Law (especially Articles #43, HR 1907 - and - #47, GCIV) were intended to stop athe 1948 Arab League Interventionist (in this case the 1948 Arab League Interventionist Forces from benefiting from their aggression) in the acquisition of territory. Remember that the term "war" is not an internationally defined descriptive condition. It is a foreign policy and political term setting gound conditions.​

Indeed, Egypt did not attempt to annex its occupied territory. The world did not recognize Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank. It remained occupied Palestinian territory. Since Israel took over that occupation in 1967, it is still occupied Palestinian territory. Gaza is still occupied Palestinian territory.

BTW, I have seen nothing in the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements that distinguish between the Palestinian territory occupied by Jordan, occupied by Egypt, or occupied by Israel. They are all identical.

When did it become Palestinian territory if they never took it up ? It was not until 1988 that the arab muslims declared a provisional Palestine nation.

WHAT PALESTINIAN TERRITORY WAS OCCUPIED IN 1949 BY Israel IF PALESTINE NEVER TOOK UP SOVEREIGNTY OF ANY LAND[/QUOTE]
Your criterion is irrelevant.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Prior to the International Conventions for Map Sheet Names, it was not uncommon for Map Publishers to Sheet Name Maps. Over the last Century, the codification of Map Names and Reference Numbers have been standardized.

Don't confuse the Map Name "Palestine" with the very different application of "Palestinian Territory." The name of the Map Sheet is not bound by the limit of the map. It is more the name of the territory in the center of the map sheet.

Well before the turn of the century --- it became customary to use Regional Name "Palestine" in the decisions at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 that the mandates system, outlined in article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations should be applied to the non-Turkish portions of the Ottoman Empire.

The Mandate for Palestine was assigned to the United Kingdom by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920.
Supporting that decision --- the designation of the territory by name was defined in the 1922 Palestine Order In Council:

When did it become Palestinian territory if they never took it up ? It was not until 1988 that the arab muslims declared a provisional Palestine nation.

WHAT PALESTINIAN TERRITORY WAS OCCUPIED IN 1949 BY Israel IF PALESTINE NEVER TOOK UP SOVEREIGNTY OF ANY LAND

Your criterion is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

So, to answer your question: The territory identified by the Order in Council.

The territorial identification and cartography designations has nothing at all to do with the effective control by the Forward Edge of the Battle Area on which much of the Armistice Arrangement were based upon.

Most Respectfully.
R