What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?

[Shusha]

It isn’t an argument of rights of self determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another. The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

 

[Coyote]

She recovered her own territory based on what? The Balfour declaration? That promised nothing. Israel’s territory was established at its founding. It has no “rights” to anything else beyond what it can take and hold, like any other nation. The territory was not Israel’s prior to 1967. Who’s it was is certainly arguable but claim it as Israel recovering its own is a disengenius way of white washing a comp,ex issue.

Its not disingenuous at all, and certainly not white-washing. It is a solid legal claim made from years of study. Israel's sovereign territory was established in 1920 at San Remo and was entrenched in law in the Mandate for Palestine. It was confirmed by treaties of peace with Egypt and with Jordan. If you are going to argue that land taken by force 1967 was illegal because it belonged to someone else, you have to define who it was taken from. Here are your possible options for who the land might have belonged to:

terra nullius (belonging to no one)
Israel
Jordan
Egypt
Palestine

I can fully support, with documentation, my reasons for the land being under the sovereignty of Israel. I can even come up with a relatively good argument for the land being terra nullius, and I occasionally make that argument. If you want, I can go over it again.

Make your case for which one you think it is and why.

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established it's borders at that time. That is it. What ever else was taken in war - Golan Heights, West Bank. As for who it was taken from - I'd say the people residing there. There is a reason Israel itself long referred to it as "Occupied" not as "Israel".

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

 

[Coyote]

It isn’t an argument of rights of self determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another. The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

It can be both. It is occupied, because no one has made it anyone's sovereign territory yet, and there are people living there (unjustly) under military law...that sounds like occupation. It is also disputed for the same reason.

And yes - rights by those OUTSIDE the territory should be on hold.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Israelis borders were established by treaty and INCLUDED those areas taken by Egypt Syria and other Arab Nations when they invaded in 1948.

 

[Shusha]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

 

[Shusha]

..because no one has made it anyone's sovereign territory yet ...

Is it territory which belongs to no one or is land that belongs to someone that Israel took?

You can't play both sides of the fence here. Which?

 

[Coyote]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

What was peaceful about bombing the King David Hotel?

 

[Coyote]

..because no one has made it anyone's sovereign territory yet ...

Is it territory which belongs to no one or is land that belongs to someone that Israel took?

You can't play both sides of the fence here. Which?

Doesn’t it belong to the people living there and don’t they have say in the matter?

 

[Coyote]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

Here is the short version on borders when Israel was finally established.
Borders of Israel - Wikipedia

There is the map upon which the partition was based: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

The West Bank is part of the Arab section.

So clearly that area is occupied/disputed. Until it’s status is finalized I do not think people should be immigrating in and building their towns.

 

[Shusha]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

Here is the short version on borders when Israel was finally established.
Borders of Israel - Wikipedia

There is the map upon which the partition was based: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

The West Bank is part of the Arab section.

So clearly that area is occupied/disputed. Until it’s status is finalized I do not think people should be immigrating in and building their towns.

I'm not asking for Wiki articles. I am perfectly aware of the legal details. Don't need to look anything up. I'm asking you to clarify what your argument is. Because you seem to be changing the goal posts every other post.

Who do you think the land belongs to?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

Not true.

People have been dancing around Israel's border question forever.

 

[Shusha]

Until it’s status is finalized I do not think people should be immigrating in and building their towns.

But people re-building towns would be fine. And you would agree those who return are not immigrants or foreigners, right?

 

[Shusha]

..because no one has made it anyone's sovereign territory yet ...

Is it territory which belongs to no one or is land that belongs to someone that Israel took?

You can't play both sides of the fence here. Which?

Doesn’t it belong to the people living there and don’t they have say in the matter?

I think it belongs collectively to both the Jewish people and the Arab people who sometimes identify as Palestinian. That's why I get antsy when people deny one of those two groups equal rights.

 

[Coyote]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

Here is the short version on borders when Israel was finally established.
Borders of Israel - Wikipedia

There is the map upon which the partition was based: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

The West Bank is part of the Arab section.

So clearly that area is occupied/disputed. Until it’s status is finalized I do not think people should be immigrating in and building their towns.

I'm not asking for Wiki articles. I am perfectly aware of the legal details. Don't need to look anything up. I'm asking you to clarify what your argument is. Because you seem to be changing the goal posts every other post.

Who do you think the land belongs to?

Since Jordan renounced it, it belongs to either the Palestinians or Israel. Since it is under "belligerent occupation" according to the Israeli High Court, occupied according to the Palestinians and "in dispute" according to the pro-Israeli faction...I would say someone needs to decide once and for all the fate of it and it's resident population. Until then, outsiders don't have any right to be coming in and establishing settlements ahead of any resolution.

 

[Shusha]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

What was peaceful about bombing the King David Hotel?

That is a cheap shot at a long detailed post.

I didn't say that there was no fighting or military action. There was. We both know it. But Israel was established through treaty and legal means. Just as all the other states at the time were. It wasn't won. It was created through hard work and appropriate steps. Then it had to be fought over and reclaimed.

 

[Shusha]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

Here is the short version on borders when Israel was finally established.
Borders of Israel - Wikipedia

There is the map upon which the partition was based: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

The West Bank is part of the Arab section.

So clearly that area is occupied/disputed. Until it’s status is finalized I do not think people should be immigrating in and building their towns.

I'm not asking for Wiki articles. I am perfectly aware of the legal details. Don't need to look anything up. I'm asking you to clarify what your argument is. Because you seem to be changing the goal posts every other post.

Who do you think the land belongs to?

Since Jordan renounced it, it belongs to either the Palestinians or Israel. Since it is under "belligerent occupation" according to the Israeli High Court, occupied according to the Palestinians and "in dispute" according to the pro-Israeli faction...I would say someone needs to decide once and for all the fate of it and it's resident population. Until then, outsiders don't have any right to be coming in and establishing settlements ahead of any resolution.

Jews are not outsiders. It's self-determination for the Jewish people.

 

[Coyote]

Until it’s status is finalized I do not think people should be immigrating in and building their towns.

But people re-building towns would be fine. And you would agree those who return are not immigrants or foreigners, right?

No. Let the population that is there at the time remain there until it's status is resolved.

As for those who "return"...it depends on what you mean. Do you mean anyone who might have had ancestry there thousands of years ago has a right to return there? That get's pretty sticky.

Do you mean those who were displaced during the conflicts leading to the formation of Israel? If so, then you would have to apply the same rights to all the Palestinians currently in refugee camps, and living outside the area who had fled at some point in the conflicts...right? That would get pretty sticky indeed.

 

[Coyote]

..because no one has made it anyone's sovereign territory yet ...

Is it territory which belongs to no one or is land that belongs to someone that Israel took?

You can't play both sides of the fence here. Which?

Doesn’t it belong to the people living there and don’t they have say in the matter?

I think it belongs collectively to both the Jewish people and the Arab people who sometimes identify as Palestinian. That's why I get antsy when people deny one of those two groups equal rights.

I think it COULD and hopefully WILL belong collectively to both those groups - but until it's situation is finalized, it doesn't. It's in limbo, and that is wrong and unfair to all those there and those who might wish to be there. For one side - they see it as the other taking their lands and future from them. For the other side - they seeing it as the other denying them their heritage and rights.

 

[Coyote]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

Here is the short version on borders when Israel was finally established.
Borders of Israel - Wikipedia

There is the map upon which the partition was based: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

The West Bank is part of the Arab section.

So clearly that area is occupied/disputed. Until it’s status is finalized I do not think people should be immigrating in and building their towns.

I'm not asking for Wiki articles. I am perfectly aware of the legal details. Don't need to look anything up. I'm asking you to clarify what your argument is. Because you seem to be changing the goal posts every other post.

Who do you think the land belongs to?

Since Jordan renounced it, it belongs to either the Palestinians or Israel. Since it is under "belligerent occupation" according to the Israeli High Court, occupied according to the Palestinians and "in dispute" according to the pro-Israeli faction...I would say someone needs to decide once and for all the fate of it and it's resident population. Until then, outsiders don't have any right to be coming in and establishing settlements ahead of any resolution.

Jews are not outsiders. It's self-determination for the Jewish people.

That is the problem - you are making it about self determination for the Jewish people. It isn't about that. The Jewish people realized their self determination when they formed and held and developed Israel, a Jewish state. They HAVE their self determination. The status of the West Bank is about the self determination of another people - if self determination is anything. Until it's status is resolved, those people's rights should not be stripped by another people's moving in on what they percieve to be their land, and building communities that exclude them.

 

[Coyote]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

What was peaceful about bombing the King David Hotel?

That is a cheap shot at a long detailed post.

I didn't say that there was no fighting or military action. There was. We both know it. But Israel was established through treaty and legal means. Just as all the other states at the time were. It wasn't won. It was created through hard work and appropriate steps. Then it had to be fought over and reclaimed.

I still say it was won, because there was also plentiful bloodshed leading up to it's final birth. Won/Established - I am not sure there is a difference here.