Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews? Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews? Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation. They are not reliable. Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.

Indeed, the national home was interpreted by the Mandate to mean:

Jews could immigrate to Palestine.
Jews would get Palestinian citizenship.
Jews would be a part of Palestine and share a government.

A Jewish state was specifically not in the plan.

Nor was an arab muslim state anywhere in any of the mandates then as they said the same thing about those states. The term national home means home of the nation for the Jews.

By default it would be a state for those who normally lived there. Whether they were Arabs or Muslims or not was irrelevant.

The historic abusive treatment of the Jews by arab muslims meant that a multi-ethnic multifaith approach would never work. So the LoN experts decided on an unequal split giving the land in question to both the muslim and the Jews via a partition. This led to 78% becoming arab muslim under the name of trans Jordan ( no national name at the time and still the same today ) and 22% becoming the National home of the Jews ( now called Israel ). That was the only plausible answer to the problems surrounding the area at the time, and the LoN should have enforced their decision with military force and shown the violent aggressive arab muslims that they stood to loose more than then expected when they kicked off. Simply by arresting the leaders of arab muslim nations engaging in attacks on the Jews and evicting them from office would have the effect of diminishing the leaders power struggles.

The UN had no right to cede land to the European colonists. The UN subcommittee's legal analysis said as much. The final determination that the land should have legally been turned over to the People of Palestine is excerpted below. The complete legal analysis is contained in the complete report (linked below) which is pretty much hidden from the general public (you have to know what you are looking for in the archives) as it shows conclusively that the UN acted illegally and solely for political motives when they sold out the people of Palestine to European colonists. The British knew this and abstained from the vote on partition, by the way.

The last sentence in the excerpt below demonstrates conclusively that everything you believe and post about the issue is untrue, nonsensical and regurgitation of of Ziionist propaganda.

Here is the link to the complete report.

http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf








View attachment 39858

So he International law put into place in 1923 that set up Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon should be scrapped and all the inhabitants of those countries expelled. Because that is what you are saying by this post.
Yes the UN did not have the authority to alter INTERNATIONAL LAW and should have spelt this out to the arab muslims, with the threat they would face military action up to and including low yield nukes to stop any violence over the allocation of land. The arab muslims already had their 78% of Palestine to play in and that is where they should have been herded in 1947. The British should have been penalised for their anti Semitism and cowardice by having their embassies closed down for a full year and only being allowed to export needed goods.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?

Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians? That's the limit to the UN's power here?
The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.

I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment. If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table. But at the moment reparations are about it.

And so, back to my original point:
Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.

Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described. Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?

You operate from the presumption is that they indeed have a valid claim; the fact that they lived in Jordan and held Jordanian citizenship on 4 JUN 1967 negates any pre-WW2 specification from the defunct League of Nations.

 

[montelatici]

Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?

Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians? That's the limit to the UN's power here?
The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.

I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment. If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table. But at the moment reparations are about it.

And so, back to my original point:
Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.

Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described. Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?

You operate from the presumption is that they indeed have a valid claim; the fact that they lived in Jordan and held Jordanian citizenship on 4 JUN 1967 negates any pre-WW2 specification from the defunct League of Nations.

The legal opinion UN A/AC.14/32 was written by a UN subcommittee 11 November 1947. , not LoN nor pre-war. The acquisition of Jordanian citizenship by the Christians and Muslims of Palestine while under Jordanian occupation, is immaterial, they live in Israeli occupied territory. Trying to negate the Christian and Muslim Palestinian's human right to self-determination is futile. It is recognized by the UN and under International law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians? That's the limit to the UN's power here?
The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.

I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment. If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table. But at the moment reparations are about it.

And so, back to my original point:
Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.

Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described. Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?

You operate from the presumption is that they indeed have a valid claim; the fact that they lived in Jordan and held Jordanian citizenship on 4 JUN 1967 negates any pre-WW2 specification from the defunct League of Nations.

The legal opinion UN A/AC.14/32 was written by a UN subcommittee 11 November 1947. , not LoN nor pre-war. The acquisition of Jordanian citizenship by the Christians and Muslims of Palestine while under Jordanian occupation, is immaterial...

Hardly. This supports, if not demonstrates, that they were legitimate and actual Jordanian citizens living within the state of Jordan at the time of the six-day war.

...they live in Israeli occupied territory.

No. they live in land that was within the state or Jordan, taken from Jordan by Israel in a war Israel did not start, and then given up by Jordan - in 1988 when it open conceded the land and ion 1991 when it signed a treaty establishing the Israeli/Jordanian border.
Thus, under international law, this means the land belongs to Israel.

Trying to negate the Christian and Muslim Palestinian's human right to self-determination is futile

Trying to argue that any state other than Israel has an legitimate claim to the land is unsupportable by international law.

 

[montelatici]

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

"Jordan’s Illegal Annexation
In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”

While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal."

1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.

3. Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation. Said annexation was recognized by the US and UK and then later accepted, if begrudgingly, by the Arab League.
You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
3. Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel

Must? According to whom? Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.

 

[MJB12741]

Is this hubris really justified?

Israel was "doomed", the Romans saw to that. A colonial project, facilitated by Britain, may have been completed, but colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have not lasted over 100 years.

Oh Monte. I think I love you for all the laughs you give us while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.

FACT: Empires rose, empires fell & --- ISRAEL STILL REMAINS.

I am supporting the right of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to self-determination.

What empire has actually actual fallen without its base element surviving? Is Israel an "empire" today? The British, exist, the Greeks exist, the French exist, the Italians exist, the Spanish exist, the Portuguese exist.

Oh now I get it. You see folks, these empires still exist today. Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors. Amazing what we can learn from Monte.

Ancient History's Greatest Empires—Revealed!

Throughout Ancient Empires before Alexander, you immerse yourself in the details of the dozen empires that flourished in the 2,000 years before the conquests of Alexander the Great paved the way for the triumphs of the Roman Empire. Grounded in a chronological approach, the lectures begin in ancient Mesopotamia and span the river valleys, deserts, and mountain ranges of the Near East. You encounter these empires and others:

• The Akkadian Empire, the first empire in human history established in the late 3rd millennium B.C. by Sargon the Great. Sargon and his successors pioneered the techniques of imperial rule and set a pattern on which later Mesopotamian empires would emulate and elaborate.
• The Empire of Hatti, which dominated Asia Minor. The emergence of this empire in the early 2nd millennium B.C. presaged the downfall of Mesopotamia's power in the ancient world. Unlike strongly centralized Mesopotamian empires, Hatti—home to the Hittites—was very loosely structured and almost feudal in nature.
• The Persian Empire, which would grow into the largest empire the ancient world had yet seen, stretching from Libya to India. This wealthy empire supported local autonomy within its imperial unity and displayed a tolerance for its bewildering diversity of peoples. Alexander the Great, however, would spell doom for this impressive civilization.
• The Carthaginian Empire, a sea empire (thalassocracy) that consisted of Phoenician settlements along the coast of the western Mediterranean and possessed far-flung trading networks. Carthage would eventually be destroyed by Rome during the Punic Wars of the 3rd century B.C.

 

[montelatici]

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation..
You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
3. Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel

Must? According to whom? Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.

1. Illegal occupation is what it is. The land did not belong to the state of Jordan. I even used CAMERA (a Zionist/Israeli organization) to back up this fact.

2. Of course people living within the boundaries of a state are entitled to citizenship and equal rights with others living within the borders, if the country is a democracy. Anything else is Apartheid, but you knew that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation..
You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
3. Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel

Must? According to whom? Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.

1. Illegal occupation is what it is.

As I said: recognized by the UK UK and Arab league.
The land belonged to Jordan, its people were its citizens. Your argument here holds no water.

Of course people living within the boundaries of a state are entitled to citizenship and equal rights with others living within the borders,

You believe that all aliens living in the US, by virtue of living in the US and nothing more, are entitled to full citizenship?

Anything else is Apartheid, but you knew that

The United States is Apartheid?

You didn't answer my questions:
Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?
How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?

 

[montelatici]

The annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom and Palkistan:

"Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it"
1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?

The state in question.

Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?

The State in question.

How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?

Will, if you have to ask that question I wonder if there is any basis for debate, but the answer is of course all citizens must have equal rights in a true democracy.


"Characteristics of a True Democracy"

"........rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, the right to a fair trial and a right to privacy without unwarranted intrusion by the government......"

4 Characteristics of a True Democracy The Classroom Synonym

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Israel is a signatory also places other requirements on Israel with respect to people under its jurisdiction.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 15.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 21.

• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[Phoenall]

Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians? That's the limit to the UN's power here?
The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.

I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment. If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table. But at the moment reparations are about it.

And so, back to my original point:
Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.

Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described. Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?

You operate from the presumption is that they indeed have a valid claim; the fact that they lived in Jordan and held Jordanian citizenship on 4 JUN 1967 negates any pre-WW2 specification from the defunct League of Nations.

The legal opinion UN A/AC.14/32 was written by a UN subcommittee 11 November 1947. , not LoN nor pre-war. The acquisition of Jordanian citizenship by the Christians and Muslims of Palestine while under Jordanian occupation, is immaterial, they live in Israeli occupied territory. Trying to negate the Christian and Muslim Palestinian's human right to self-determination is futile. It is recognized by the UN and under International law.

Which international law would that be then Abdul ?

 

[Phoenall]

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

"Jordan’s Illegal Annexation
In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”

While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal."

1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.

3. Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel.

The land is Israeli, the inhabitants aren't so they do not have rights to citizenship or votes. No international law confers automatic citizenship on a person living in another nation. So the arab muslims have to go and find another place to live, or beg Israel for one last chance.

 

[Phoenall]

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation..
You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
3. Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel

Must? According to whom? Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.

1. Illegal occupation is what it is. The land did not belong to the state of Jordan. I even used CAMERA (a Zionist/Israeli organization) to back up this fact.

2. Of course people living within the boundaries of a state are entitled to citizenship and equal rights with others living within the borders, if the country is a democracy. Anything else is Apartheid, but you knew that.

What law says it is an illegal occupation

The arab muslims living in the west bank in 1948 accepted the rule of Jordan thus exercising their free determination.

So you could come to the uk illegally and take up residence as a full uk citizen and not be deported. Get real you idiot you would be arrested and thrown in a cell for your cheek.

 

[Phoenall]

The annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom and Palkistan:

"Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it"
1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?

The state in question.

Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?

The State in question.

How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?

Will, if you have to ask that question I wonder if there is any basis for debate, but the answer is of course all citizens must have equal rights in a true democracy.


"Characteristics of a True Democracy"

"........rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, the right to a fair trial and a right to privacy without unwarranted intrusion by the government......"

4 Characteristics of a True Democracy The Classroom Synonym

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Israel is a signatory also places other requirements on Israel with respect to people under its jurisdiction.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 15.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 21.

• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Which is still not law and every nation decides its own variation of human rights.


Now look at 15 and ask yourself what are the rights for the Jews ?

 

[MJB12741]

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation..
You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
3. Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel

Must? According to whom? Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.

1. Illegal occupation is what it is. The land did not belong to the state of Jordan. I even used CAMERA (a Zionist/Israeli organization) to back up this fact.

2. Of course people living within the boundaries of a state are entitled to citizenship and equal rights with others living within the borders, if the country is a democracy. Anything else is Apartheid, but you knew that.

What law says it is an illegal occupation

The arab muslims living in the west bank in 1948 accepted the rule of Jordan thus exercising their free determination.

So you could come to the uk illegally and take up residence as a full uk citizen and not be deported. Get real you idiot you would be arrested and thrown in a cell for your cheek.

Please forgive Monte & go easy on him. He just cannot handle documanted facts. But we need him here for fun & laughs.

 

[montelatici]

You are so unfamiliar with what a documented fact is, you can't even spell the word. But, you your ignorance and your propensity to demonstrate it in writing, is great for the laughs it provides the audience.

 

[montelatici]

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

"Jordan’s Illegal Annexation
In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”

While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal."

1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.

3. Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel.

The land is Israeli, the inhabitants aren't so they do not have rights to citizenship or votes. No international law confers automatic citizenship on a person living in another nation. So the arab muslims have to go and find another place to live, or beg Israel for one last chance.

That's not what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says and Israel is a signatory.

 

[MJB12741]

You are so unfamiliar with what a documented fact is, you can't even spell the word. But, you your ignorance and your propensity to demonstrate it in writing, is great for the laughs it provides the audience.

Hey Monte. Did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?

 

[montelatici]

The annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom and Palkistan:

"Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it"
1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?

The state in question.

Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?

The State in question.

How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?

Will, if you have to ask that question I wonder if there is any basis for debate, but the answer is of course all citizens must have equal rights in a true democracy.


"Characteristics of a True Democracy"

"........rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, the right to a fair trial and a right to privacy without unwarranted intrusion by the government......"

4 Characteristics of a True Democracy The Classroom Synonym

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Israel is a signatory also places other requirements on Israel with respect to people under its jurisdiction.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 15.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 21.

• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Which is still not law and every nation decides its own variation of human rights.


Now look at 15 and ask yourself what are the rights for the Jews ?

Yes, the Israelis are withholding nationality from the non-Jews under their jurisdiction. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[MJB12741]

Is this hubris really justified?

Israel was "doomed", the Romans saw to that. A colonial project, facilitated by Britain, may have been completed, but colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have not lasted over 100 years.

Oh Monte. I think I love you for all the laughs you give us while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.

FACT: Empires rose, empires fell & --- ISRAEL STILL REMAINS.

I am supporting the right of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to self-determination.

What empire has actually actual fallen without its base element surviving? Is Israel an "empire" today? The British, exist, the Greeks exist, the French exist, the Italians exist, the Spanish exist, the Portuguese exist.

Oh now I get it. You see folks, these empires still exist today. Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors. Amazing what we can learn from Monte.

Ancient History's Greatest Empires—Revealed!

Throughout Ancient Empires before Alexander, you immerse yourself in the details of the dozen empires that flourished in the 2,000 years before the conquests of Alexander the Great paved the way for the triumphs of the Roman Empire. Grounded in a chronological approach, the lectures begin in ancient Mesopotamia and span the river valleys, deserts, and mountain ranges of the Near East. You encounter these empires and others:

• The Akkadian Empire, the first empire in human history established in the late 3rd millennium B.C. by Sargon the Great. Sargon and his successors pioneered the techniques of imperial rule and set a pattern on which later Mesopotamian empires would emulate and elaborate.
• The Empire of Hatti, which dominated Asia Minor. The emergence of this empire in the early 2nd millennium B.C. presaged the downfall of Mesopotamia's power in the ancient world. Unlike strongly centralized Mesopotamian empires, Hatti—home to the Hittites—was very loosely structured and almost feudal in nature.
• The Persian Empire, which would grow into the largest empire the ancient world had yet seen, stretching from Libya to India. This wealthy empire supported local autonomy within its imperial unity and displayed a tolerance for its bewildering diversity of peoples. Alexander the Great, however, would spell doom for this impressive civilization.
• The Carthaginian Empire, a sea empire (thalassocracy) that consisted of Phoenician settlements along the coast of the western Mediterranean and possessed far-flung trading networks. Carthage would eventually be destroyed by Rome during the Punic Wars of the 3rd century B.C.

I claimed that empires rose & empires fell. And Israel still remains. You claimed empires did not rise & fall. Any comments on the above documented facts?