What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?

[Sixties Fan]

Israel proper has no settlers?
That is not what Hamas, PA and others say as they view ALL Jews in Mandate Palestine as settlers.

Highlighting this as I believe it is a key point.

I have been asking people to clarity that for years and the question has been ducked 100% of the time.

Very badly put together sentence.
Please, clarify.

 

[Shusha]

Israel proper has no settlers?
That is not what Hamas, PA and others say as they view ALL Jews in Mandate Palestine as settlers.

Highlighting this as I believe it is a key point.

I have been asking people to clarity that for years and the question has been ducked 100% of the time.

How do you mean, "the question has been ducked"? I don't understand.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel proper has no settlers?
That is not what Hamas, PA and others say as they view ALL Jews in Mandate Palestine as settlers.

Highlighting this as I believe it is a key point.

I have been asking people to clarity that for years and the question has been ducked 100% of the time.

How do you mean, "the question has been ducked"? I don't understand.

According to all of the history I have read, Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land. I have repeatedly asked for some evidence that Israel had legally acquired any land. Duck, dodge, and weave has been the only response.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?
※→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

This is a recurring question. A very dynamic question. Not the easiest of issues to address.

Depends on how they go about doing it doesn't it?
Like any other people they have every right to purchase property and settle there.
They have no other "right" to "take back" anything.

Why not?

(REFERENCE QUESTIONS)

How many wars does Israel have to fight before the issue is put to rest?

Sovereignty (absolute control) and the Right to Purchase Property and Settle there (a matter of Ownership) are two completely different issues.

(COMMENT)

Israel has fought three+ wars.

The Areas in dispute was the territory controlled by Jordan (the West Bank), Jerusalem and the area controlled by Egypt (the Gaza Strip).

There are Peace Treaties that cover these territories for peace. The Palestinians did not control anything and were not a party to the treaties.

Sovereignty wise, by what Right do the Palestinians claim anything?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

Israel proper has no settlers?
That is not what Hamas, PA and others say as they view ALL Jews in Mandate Palestine as settlers.

Highlighting this as I believe it is a key point.

I have been asking people to clarity that for years and the question has been ducked 100% of the time.

How do you mean, "the question has been ducked"? I don't understand.

According to all of the history I have read, Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land. I have repeatedly asked for some evidence that Israel had legally acquired any land. Duck, dodge, and weave has been the only response.

If I understand correctly -
Until negotiated Israel is Palestine, there simply was no other functional govt. that came into agreements with neighboring states.

However one can say differently - Jordan is a Palestinian state, with a Palestinian govt. that relinquished all control over the West Bank after the war with Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Israel proper has no settlers?
That is not what Hamas, PA and others say as they view ALL Jews in Mandate Palestine as settlers.

Highlighting this as I believe it is a key point.

I have been asking people to clarity that for years and the question has been ducked 100% of the time.

It most certainly has NOT been ducked 100% of the time. Several of us have definitively responded. Including myself.

You just choose to ignore legal documents which don't support your skewed version of reality. Important legal documents like the Mandate for Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Sovereignty (absolute control) and the Right to Purchase Property and Settle there (a matter of Ownership) are two completely different issues.
R

The issue of Jewish settlements (never Arab settlements) is an attempt to conflate the two.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?
※→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

This is a recurring question. A very dynamic question. Not the easiest of issues to address.

Depends on how they go about doing it doesn't it?
Like any other people they have every right to purchase property and settle there.
They have no other "right" to "take back" anything.

Why not?

(REFERENCE QUESTIONS)

How many wars does Israel have to fight before the issue is put to rest?

Sovereignty (absolute control) and the Right to Purchase Property and Settle there (a matter of Ownership) are two completely different issues.

(COMMENT)

Israel has fought three+ wars.

The Areas in dispute was the territory controlled by Jordan (the West Bank), Jerusalem and the area controlled by Egypt (the Gaza Strip).

There are Peace Treaties that cover these territories for peace. The Palestinians did not control anything and were not a party to the treaties.

Sovereignty wise, by what Right do the Palestinians claim anything?

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has fought three+ wars.

Not with the Palestinians. The Palestinians never had an army. It has always been Israeli troops attacking Palestinian civilians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel proper has no settlers?
That is not what Hamas, PA and others say as they view ALL Jews in Mandate Palestine as settlers.

Highlighting this as I believe it is a key point.

I have been asking people to clarity that for years and the question has been ducked 100% of the time.

It most certainly has NOT been ducked 100% of the time. Several of us have definitively responded. Including myself.

You just choose to ignore legal documents which don't support your skewed version of reality. Important legal documents like the Mandate for Palestine.

The mandate was not a land transfer. The Mandate had no land to give. The Mandate was Jewish citizenship along with the other citizens. The Mandate was not to create a Jewish state.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?
※→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

This is a recurring question. A very dynamic question. Not the easiest of issues to address.

Depends on how they go about doing it doesn't it?
Like any other people they have every right to purchase property and settle there.
They have no other "right" to "take back" anything.

Why not?

(REFERENCE QUESTIONS)

How many wars does Israel have to fight before the issue is put to rest?

Sovereignty (absolute control) and the Right to Purchase Property and Settle there (a matter of Ownership) are two completely different issues.

(COMMENT)

Israel has fought three+ wars.

The Areas in dispute was the territory controlled by Jordan (the West Bank), Jerusalem and the area controlled by Egypt (the Gaza Strip).

There are Peace Treaties that cover these territories for peace. The Palestinians did not control anything and were not a party to the treaties.

Sovereignty wise, by what Right do the Palestinians claim anything?

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has fought three+ wars.

Not with the Palestinians. The Palestinians never had an army. It has always been Israeli troops attacking Palestinian civilians.

The "Palestinians" were the ones who started the war against a future Israel in 1920. Riots, attacks into cities like Hebron, murdering and getting the Jews killed or expelled.

The "Palestinians" Arabs (they were not calling themselves that, yet)were the ones to refuse a State in 1937 and 1947, and the ones to start attacks on Jews after the UN Partition of 1947.

No military? It does not matter.
They had weapons. They killed many Jews.

It was Palestinian Arabs attacking WITH WEAPONS Palestinian Jews before Israel declared independence.

It was Palestinian Arabs with WEAPONS who attacked Israel with the other Arab countries and killed 6000 Jews before losing that war of extermination of the new State of Israel.

Call them what you like.
Militia, military, commandos, jihadists.

They had weapons. They attacked Jews with them. Including civilians with no weapons at all as in 1929 in Hebron. They murdered, raped, tortured the Jews. Then the British got those Jews expelled instead of protected.

The poor, poor Arabs in Palestine NEVER attacked anyone with weapons and especially civilians with no weapons at all.

DUCK Tinmore.........

 

[rylah]

RE: What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?
※→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

This is a recurring question. A very dynamic question. Not the easiest of issues to address.

Depends on how they go about doing it doesn't it?
Like any other people they have every right to purchase property and settle there.
They have no other "right" to "take back" anything.

Why not?

(REFERENCE QUESTIONS)

How many wars does Israel have to fight before the issue is put to rest?

Sovereignty (absolute control) and the Right to Purchase Property and Settle there (a matter of Ownership) are two completely different issues.

(COMMENT)

Israel has fought three+ wars.

The Areas in dispute was the territory controlled by Jordan (the West Bank), Jerusalem and the area controlled by Egypt (the Gaza Strip).

There are Peace Treaties that cover these territories for peace. The Palestinians did not control anything and were not a party to the treaties.

Sovereignty wise, by what Right do the Palestinians claim anything?

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has fought three+ wars.

Not with the Palestinians. The Palestinians never had an army. It has always been Israeli troops attacking Palestinian civilians.

I guess Palestinian Arabs also didn't help Faisal and Britain occupy the land by force, right?

"Palestinians never had an army..." helpless innocent bunnies.

 

[Shusha]

The mandate was not a land transfer. The Mandate had no land to give. The Mandate was Jewish citizenship along with the other citizens.

Arrrggghhh. You get so much right and then lose it on the simplest, most basic principle because you don't happen to like it.

Let's take your first sentence and say I agree with you. The Mandate for Palestine was not a land transfer. Like all the other Mandates none of them were land transfers. Strictly speaking, "land transfer" is inappropriate terminology anyway. Land was never transferred from one sovereign to another (as were other territories transferred, or ceded, from Turkey to Greece, Italy, etc). The Mandate territories rather saw the dissolution of Turkish sovereignty and the creation of several entirely new sovereigns. The question, then, is how those new sovereigns came into being.

So. Let's walk through this. Turkey renounced the territory. This makes the territory terra nullius -- territory under the sovereignty of no State. The rights to create a State are invested in the two groups of peoples who make up the two ethnically distinct cultures in the territory, each with rights based on long-term residence or indigeneity in the territory. The persons responsible for protecting the rights of both peoples was the Allied Powers, and, eventually, the British for that particular Mandate. With me so far?

The Mandate for Palestine, which whether you like it or not, is a legal document, expressing the intent of the Allied Powers who were the ones responsible for putting into practice the Treaty of Lausanne, specifically the phrase in Article 16 which states: the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Let's say we even agree that the parties concerned are NOT the Allied Powers, who are only the protectors of rights but have no rights themselves. Let's say we agree that the "parties concerned" are the two peoples residing in the territory, with rights to sovereignty. Still with me?

Okay. So how does a peoples with the rights to sovereignty actually create a brand new, never-before-seen sovereign State? We've been through this before. There are four criteria: they have a permanent population; a defined territory, they form a government, and they develop the capacity to enter into relations with other States. They often also, though (as you correctly point out) not necessary, become recognized by other States.

All of these things were achieved by Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. And there isn't much room to argue with any of it, other than perhaps small matters of detail.

Here's where you go terribly wrong:

The Mandate was not to create a Jewish state.

No where is there a prohibition for the Jewish people which prevents them from forming a State. Whether from the Mandate documents itself or from other international law -- there is no prohibition on any peoples forming a State for self-determination. On the contrary, as you constantly remind us, that right to independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty is an INHERENT right of all peoples. You absolutely can not continue to remind us of that basic concept while simultaneously prohibiting the Jewish people from that right.

 

[Shusha]

Now, back to the topic of Jewish "settlers".

The problem with the Palestinian POV is that it conflates the issues of personal property ownership and sovereignty -- calling for limitations on property rights for people simply because of their ethnic background. And, of course, it applies this unequally to only one side of the conflict, all the while, calling Israel apartheid.

Personal property ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty. The existence of people of a certain ethnicity owning property does not in any way affect the sovereignty of a nation. Have you looked at the "swiss cheese full of holes" that makes up Israel with its Arab neighborhoods? And yet -- Israel is still a sovereign nation. There is absolutely no reason why Palestine can't also be a sovereign nation if Jews happen to live there.

This seriously should be the end of the argument about Jewish settlements. But, if you want to continue to argue against settlements why are we only arguing about Jewish ones? Why not discuss the Arab ones. Such as Nabi Saleh?

 

[teddyearp]

According to all of the history I have read, Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land. I have repeatedly asked for some evidence that Israel had legally acquired any land. Duck, dodge, and weave has been the only response.

Really? Let's see here. When the Pasha decided to drag the Ottoman Empire into WWI on the LOOSING side all the lands contained within the Ottoman Empire was transferred to those who had the Mandates after they LOST said war. Several treaties and other LEGAL agreements solidified the transfer.

But really why are we going back down this over one hundred year old road. Again?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?
※→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

This is a recurring question. A very dynamic question. Not the easiest of issues to address.

Depends on how they go about doing it doesn't it?
Like any other people they have every right to purchase property and settle there.
They have no other "right" to "take back" anything.

Why not?

(REFERENCE QUESTIONS)

How many wars does Israel have to fight before the issue is put to rest?

Sovereignty (absolute control) and the Right to Purchase Property and Settle there (a matter of Ownership) are two completely different issues.

(COMMENT)

Israel has fought three+ wars.

The Areas in dispute was the territory controlled by Jordan (the West Bank), Jerusalem and the area controlled by Egypt (the Gaza Strip).

There are Peace Treaties that cover these territories for peace. The Palestinians did not control anything and were not a party to the treaties.

Sovereignty wise, by what Right do the Palestinians claim anything?

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has fought three+ wars.

Not with the Palestinians. The Palestinians never had an army. It has always been Israeli troops attacking Palestinian civilians.

The "Palestinians" were the ones who started the war against a future Israel in 1920. Riots, attacks into cities like Hebron, murdering and getting the Jews killed or expelled.

The "Palestinians" Arabs (they were not calling themselves that, yet)were the ones to refuse a State in 1937 and 1947, and the ones to start attacks on Jews after the UN Partition of 1947.

No military? It does not matter.
They had weapons. They killed many Jews.

It was Palestinian Arabs attacking WITH WEAPONS Palestinian Jews before Israel declared independence.

It was Palestinian Arabs with WEAPONS who attacked Israel with the other Arab countries and killed 6000 Jews before losing that war of extermination of the new State of Israel.

Call them what you like.
Militia, military, commandos, jihadists.

They had weapons. They attacked Jews with them. Including civilians with no weapons at all as in 1929 in Hebron. They murdered, raped, tortured the Jews. Then the British got those Jews expelled instead of protected.

The poor, poor Arabs in Palestine NEVER attacked anyone with weapons and especially civilians with no weapons at all.

DUCK Tinmore.........

Oh my, so many Israeli talking points.

 

[teddyearp]

The mandate was not a land transfer. The Mandate had no land to give. The Mandate was Jewish citizenship along with the other citizens. The Mandate was not to create a Jewish state.

Now here you are just full of funny shit!

 

[teddyearp]

Duck, er I mean **** Tinmore.

 

[abi]

According to all of the history I have read, Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land. I have repeatedly asked for some evidence that Israel had legally acquired any land. Duck, dodge, and weave has been the only response.

Good point. Land ownership never changed.

And they have to duck this or lie.

 

[teddyearp]

Good point. Land ownership never changed.<snip>

See post #94. Then go study.

 

[abi]

It said nothing relevant.