What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?
- Thread starter teddyearp
- Start date
He was referring to Judea and Samaria - lands that were part of the Israel of antiquity. That is what I assumed he was referring to because I've heard that many times.
I don't have any "right" to return to those regions - my ancestors left, and with that any associated rights of place. They formed new homes under new skies.
So I don't have any greater "rights" of place than anyone else. What rights I have are granted by the nation - in other words Wales can decide that anyone of Welsh ancestry has a right to immigrate back to Wales and receive citizenship and associated rights.
Interesting question with Denmark too....and that makes the question of "rights" murkier because in ancient conflicts particularly, it can be impossible to sort out who was the initial aggressor and bounderies and nations rose and fell frequently.
Should it? How can you be sure it was taken against their will even - this was THOUSANDS of years ago. The people there now - the people who have been there for the past century - the people who have been there for the past millinium have nothing to do with the events that transpired then. Since then other people have made it their home.
No one has the RIGHT to take anything from another against their will - only in terms of modern ethics. We can't go back and pick apart history and decide who has what right to where when the ethics of the time were very different.
It's also how I view the "right of return" - it only applies to those actually affected, not their progeny down through the generations.
You can't call something as broad as that "terrorism". For example, what about Jewish immigrants who purchased land legally from Palestinians. Is that terrorism?
Possibly...but I'm not sure.
To me rights imply an active not passive concept. If there is a right, the individual has the right to exercise it. And when it comes into conflict with the rights of others...what then?
No. If I choose to I AM going to use similar rights of ancestry. You don't get to decide who can and who can not. Nor does it matter if a country is in danger - that has no bearing on rights of people or individuals.
And you KNOW this how? This statement you casually throw out as if it were a "fact". You do not know what feelings I have for the countries my ancestors came from. My grandmother taught my father Welsh and he taught me a few hymns in Welsh. My mother has a very old photograph of our family farm in Norway. So don't talk like you know anything or that my love for my ancestral places is somehow of lesser value.
And that is absolutely fine. But - that doesn't give you the right to diminish other people's connection to place including those who have also resided in those lands for hundreds if not thousands of years or - just a few generations. You have no right to take that from them.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your argument here. I've never quibbled over Israel's right to exist or the Jewish right to a homeland.
AND, like any other country - they can act badly. They can look the other way at settlers stoning Palestinians trying to go to school yet come down hard on Palestinians stoning settlers.
Agree.
I do not share that view nor does much of the non-Arab international community. Settlements have broadly been defined as civilian enclaves in land captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Even Israel refers to them as "settlers".
What does Israel say about settlements?
The settlers and their supporters cite the Jewish Bible, thousands of years of Jewish history, and Israel's need for "strategic depth" as reasons for living in the West Bank.
They also note that Israel took the territory from Jordan, which has since relinquished its claim to the West Bank. Therefore, the settlers argue, there is no legal sovereign in the territory.
However, no country, not even Israel, considers West Bank settlements to be sovereign Israeli territory. As we noted, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and administers it as part of Israel. But Israel has never annexed any other part of the West Bank.
The settlers want to be formally incorporated into Israel, but that would ignite a major controversy. For now, Israel regards the West Bank as "disputed" territory that has been under the Israeli military since the 1967 war.
They also note that Israel took the territory from Jordan, which has since relinquished its claim to the West Bank. Therefore, the settlers argue, there is no legal sovereign in the territory.
However, no country, not even Israel, considers West Bank settlements to be sovereign Israeli territory. As we noted, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and administers it as part of Israel. But Israel has never annexed any other part of the West Bank.
The settlers want to be formally incorporated into Israel, but that would ignite a major controversy. For now, Israel regards the West Bank as "disputed" territory that has been under the Israeli military since the 1967 war.
Were those particular people expelled?
Did those particular people live there? And, if not, then does the same right not exist for the Palestinians that were expelled - the same right of return? Could you explain to me this logic?
Which Arab ones where?
Yes if they can prove legal ownership. But that is a different matter than many of the settlers and "outposts".
Do the Palestinians have the same right?
You did in that post.
I believe I did. It is a frequent occurence.
They have the same right as any people - for example the Jews - to have a homeland, to be citizens of a nation.
They have militias.
I don't know...for example, the settlers want Israel to incorporate them. They exert enormous political leverage.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,397
- 4,881
- 1,815
This is one of the clunkers in your argument. The successor state of Palestine was already determined. Its international borders were already defined by post WWI treaties. The land inside those borders would be Palestine. The Turkish Citizens inside that territory would automatically become Palestinian citizens by international law. (The rule of state succession, 1907 Hague Regulations) This was reaffirmed by the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order where all Turkish citizens in that territory would be citizens of Palestine.
This was the starting point. The Palestinians were the people of the place with the standard list of inalienable rights. Much of what happened after that were violations of those inalienable rights.
RoccoR
Gold Member
What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?
※→ P F Tinmore, Coyote, et al,
Some things just escape you.
Yes, this is correct! On the money. One were Palestinians that represented the Arab League and the other was a contingent of Palestinians that represented the Arab Higher Committee.
Not exactly. The nationality was determined to be the territory to which the Mandate applied. It was effectively the successor, but not the true successor.
A05 Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions • this being Judgment #5
While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres did mention Palestine as "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers," the Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine even once in the treaty.
You are confusion Article 30 on Nationality (the status of belonging to a particular nation, in this case the Government of Palestine - consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine) with that of Citizenship (recognized as a subject or national of a state or commonwealth, as defined by the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Order of 1925). Nationality and Citizenship are separate concepts; they do not confer the state of a nation or state. It is the other way around, the government confers the nationality and citizenship.
The boundaries as set by the Allied Powers, had not been allocated as nations relative to the Mandate of Palestine. "On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah." However, the remainder of the Mandate had not yet been determined.
This is nowhere near the reality that was the Mandate of Palestine. The was a Government of Palestine (AKA: the Mandatory by HM's Government) which was the name of the territory to which the Mandate applied (Palestine).
(COMMENT)
There was no such thing as the standard list of "inalienable rights" (recognized by all governments and leaders everywhere) at any time during the period of the Mandate; but most particularly in the 1925 time frame.
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ P F Tinmore, Coyote, et al,
Some things just escape you.
(COMMENT)
Yes, this is correct! On the money. One were Palestinians that represented the Arab League and the other was a contingent of Palestinians that represented the Arab Higher Committee.
Irregulars:
.svg)
(COMMENT)
Not exactly. The nationality was determined to be the territory to which the Mandate applied. It was effectively the successor, but not the true successor.
A05 Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions • this being Judgment #5
✪ Judgment of 26 March 1925 (including the text of the declaration of M. Altamira)
The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the
rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him
with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to constructed in Palestine.
This was the condition and language use in which to describe the Mandate of Palestine/Government of Palestine.The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the
rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him
with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to constructed in Palestine.
While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres did mention Palestine as "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers," the Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine even once in the treaty.
You are confusion Article 30 on Nationality (the status of belonging to a particular nation, in this case the Government of Palestine - consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine) with that of Citizenship (recognized as a subject or national of a state or commonwealth, as defined by the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Order of 1925). Nationality and Citizenship are separate concepts; they do not confer the state of a nation or state. It is the other way around, the government confers the nationality and citizenship.
The boundaries as set by the Allied Powers, had not been allocated as nations relative to the Mandate of Palestine. "On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah." However, the remainder of the Mandate had not yet been determined.
(COMMENT)
This is nowhere near the reality that was the Mandate of Palestine. The was a Government of Palestine (AKA: the Mandatory by HM's Government) which was the name of the territory to which the Mandate applied (Palestine).
[/quote]
(COMMENT)
There was no such thing as the standard list of "inalienable rights" (recognized by all governments and leaders everywhere) at any time during the period of the Mandate; but most particularly in the 1925 time frame.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: What percentage of Israeli settlers are terrorists?
※→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,
This is another one of those crystal ball issues.
Israel, and all the various views on the Arab Palestinian 'vs' Israel confrontation has been subject to a phenomenon whereby the anti-Israeli growth of adverse beliefs, ideas, facts and trends increases as more and more they are adopted by others. It makes no difference what the truth is or how the facts are played and manipulated, the adverse context grows.
Like some of those in the discussions here, they will not look at the notions and break them down into their constituent parts and dig down into the meat of what should be done to one side or the other.
v/r
R
※→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,
This is another one of those crystal ball issues.
(COMMENT)
Israel, and all the various views on the Arab Palestinian 'vs' Israel confrontation has been subject to a phenomenon whereby the anti-Israeli growth of adverse beliefs, ideas, facts and trends increases as more and more they are adopted by others. It makes no difference what the truth is or how the facts are played and manipulated, the adverse context grows.
Like some of those in the discussions here, they will not look at the notions and break them down into their constituent parts and dig down into the meat of what should be done to one side or the other.
v/r
R
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,226
- 3,637
- 290
Oh. Finally. I've been two years on this board and FINALLY someone actually stops making the ridiculous "Jews have no rights argument" and gets to the real reason discussion about Jewish settlements.
Political leverage. Who is exerting political leverage on whom and to what purpose?
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,226
- 3,637
- 290
Arrrggghh. Again. So close and yet so clueless. The Treaty of Lausanne is the legal document where Turkey renounces the territory. Walk it through. Document by document. What happens next, in the legal chain of events? That territory is terra nullius, renounced by the previous sovereign. Under the sovereignty of no one. What happened next? A new sovereignty must come into being. How does that happen?
You claim that the successor State was already determined. Let's say I agree with you. How would you demonstrate that to be true? What documents would you produce or link to which demonstrate that a successor State had already been determined? What documents confirm that successor State? When and where and how does that successor State meet the four criteria for sovereignty?
And finally, regardless of the above, support your claim that the Jewish people are legally prohibited from self-determination, independence and sovereignty in their historical homeland. Let's say that everything you claim is true. (Its SO not, but let's say). That Palestine came into being in the 1920s. That the Arab people have been prevented from exercising their rights to self-determination, sovereignty and independence. That there is only one State and it is "Palestine". Where is there a prohibition on dividing the territory into two parts -- one for the Arab peoples of Palestine and one for the Jewish peoples of Palestine? Be sure to include in your argument why Palestine is prohibited from division where Czechoslovakia was not, where Yugoslavia was not, where Sudan was not, where Spain/Catalonia is not, where Britain/Scotland is not, where North and South Korea are not, etc.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
Hey, great to meet you, outstanding Jewish person.
I am the former chief financial officer for the recently deposed prime minister of Sierra Leone, myself, and would like to form a partnership with you. You see, I need to deposit 28 million dollars in your bank account for safe keeping.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,397
- 4,881
- 1,815
"In all territories detached from Turkey, either as a result of the Balkan Wars in 1913, or under the present Treaty, other than those referred to in Article 311, the State which definitely acquires the territory shall ipso facto succeed to the duties and charges of Turkey towards concessionaires and holders of contracts, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 311, and shall maintain the guarantees granted or assign equivalent ones.
"This succession shall take effect, in the case of each acquiring State, as from the coming into force of the Treaty under which the cession was effected. Such State shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the concessions may be worked and the carrying out of the contracts proceeded with without interruption.
"This succession shall take effect, in the case of each acquiring State, as from the coming into force of the Treaty under which the cession was effected. Such State shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the concessions may be worked and the carrying out of the contracts proceeded with without interruption.
There was no question about Palestine being the successor state and that the territory was acquired by the state of Palestine.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Canada’s wealth is quietly leaving — and everyday Canadians will pay the price- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 2
