# Israel does not exist



## Shusha (Aug 19, 2017)

I was loathe to begin a new thread on this topic when it came up on another one, because, quite frankly, the claim is so ridiculous it does not deserve discussion, let alone its own thread.  However, since it is likely to drive the other thread off-topic...

The claim made on the other thread was that *Israel does not exist*.  The context of this assertion is the vile notion that it is not possible to commit a crime against Israel or Israelis (read: Jews), including war crimes and humanitarian crimes -- thus absolving Arabs of all wrong-doing when Israel (read: Jews) is the target. 

It is a perverse and abhorrent corruption of humanitarian law to claim that crimes committed against a certain ethnic group are not crimes.  And frankly, anyone in the US experiencing the horror in your country this past week should be ashamed to suggest such a thing. 

The criteria for existence as a state, as provided by the claimant are as follows:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Clearly Israel has a permanent population, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states,  I am going to assume the claimant has no quarrels with those three, though he is free to correct me if I am wrong.  The supposed criteria that Israel is missing is a "defined territory".

I beg to differ.  Israel has a clearly defined territory.  It has a treaty with Egypt, defining its southern border.  It has a treaty with Jordan, defining its eastern border.  It has treaties of the Mandate documents defining its northern borders with Lebanon and Syria (with some disputes) which also confirms its eastern and southern borders.  And, of course, it has the sea as its western border.  Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations. 

I'm going to point out that a disputed border is NOT cause to dissolve a nation nor to prevent its formation.  There are literally dozens and dozens of disputed borders in the world.  If a disputed border is the only criteria for "non-existence" then Syria and Lebanon do not exist.  Canada does not exist.  The US does not exist.  Nor any of the dozens of other nations with border disputes. 

A "defined territory" is a general term, and not one that depends on uncontested boundaries.  It is very easy, in practical terms, to define Israel's sovereign territory. 


If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck -- you can be certain its a duck. 

And, I'm just going to drop this here:

IF it is true that no crimes can be committed against a peoples if their nation does not exist -- then Israel has committed no crimes against the Arab Palestinians and have absolutely no need to "adhere to international law".  Indeed, Israel is free to carry out whatever deeds it likes upon the Arab "Palestinian" people.


----------



## Kat (Aug 20, 2017)




----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.


This is a truth that is always ignored. As the citizens of Palestine, the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. As implied above, and the right under international law, the Palestinians are the only ones who can cede land or change borders. Only a treaty with Palestine can cede land or change borders. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements noted that Palestinian land and international borders remained unchanged since 1922.

So, as of 1949 Palestine and its international borders were still intact. Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

You are exactly right.  Only a treaty can cede land or change borders.  As such, the territory in question is still intact. 

Which State (government) has sovereignty over that territory, on behalf of which people?  That would be the Israeli government and the "Palestinians" whose rights were recognized by treaty and international law -- the Jewish people. 

You can tell that they are the ones with sovereignty over that territory because they are the ones, in point of fact, with the capacity to enter into relations with other states and make treaties with them.  And who have a government.  And who have a defined territory, as you, yourself, admit above.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> You are exactly right. Only a treaty can cede land or change borders. As such, the territory in question is still intact.
> 
> Which State (government) has sovereignty over that territory, on behalf of which people?


Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Look it up.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.



A people and a government and a State can not occupy land they have rights to and legal claim over.  There is no occupation, because the only country which exists there is Israel (formerly called the Mandate for Palestine.)


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?



You keep saying "treaties with Palestine" as though one can make a treaty with soil.  You can't.  States make treaties.  Israel, as a State, has made treaties.  Since 1948, including the 1949 Armistice Agreements!

You keep acting as though there is another legal entity here.  There is not.  In 1948/1949 the only entities were Israel, Jordan and Egypt.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> ...


The Mandate *FOR* Palestine was not a place. It was an appointed administration for Palestine.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

Let's come at this from another direction.  Let's pretend that Israel didn't change the name of the nascent state to Israel.  Let's say, for the sake of this discussion, the new government decided to keep the name "Palestine".  The government of Palestine (the only government of Palestine) made Armistice treaties with Jordan and Egypt in 1949.  And peace treaties later.  All of those treaties say "Palestine".

This is the only thing that has changed.  Would you argue that "Palestine" does not exist?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?
> ...


There is. Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.
> ...




While it can be shown that Israel is a state it can also be shown that there was NEVER a palestine state. Still isn't. There's a Gaza and there's semi autonomous Arab areas within Israel, but there's clearly no palestine. Partly because theres no such thing as a palestinian people. There's Syrians, Egyptians, so forth in the area, that we now most often call Jordanians but there was never any such thing as palestine or palestinians. 

Israel on the other hand is a distinct piece of land with a distinct people speaking a distinct language and enjoying a distinct culture and tribal affiliation.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > You are exactly right. Only a treaty can cede land or change borders. As such, the territory in question is still intact.
> ...



You're miles off topic. Israel is a sovereign nation. There is NO occupation. Israel sits on land designated by the last enforceable treaty for the creation of a Jewish homeland. Which is exactly what its been used for. 

Didn't I have you on ignore Tinman ? How'd you end up in my feed again ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> While it can be shown that Israel is a state it can also be shown that there was NEVER a palestine state.


Can you prove that?

Links?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You are wrong.  Because the Treaty of Lausanne did not fulfill the four criteria you provided.  States did not come into being until there was a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other States.  (That WAS the entire point of the Mandate!)  None of the states actually came into being until they declared independence and fulfilled the four criteria.  I DO agree with you that the criteria for a defined territory was established in the Treaty of Lausanne.  But Statehood was not. 

However, even so, the state of "Palestine" had a government, a defined territory as you describe above, and had the capacity to enter into treaties.  It declared independence in 1948.  It fulfills all the criteria.  Why would it NOT be a State?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> Israel sits on land designated by the last enforceable treaty for the creation of a Jewish homeland.


Which was?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > While it can be shown that Israel is a state it can also be shown that there was NEVER a palestine state.
> ...



You can't prove a negative.

It would be easy enough for you to prove there were two states in the territory.  Just show the Palestine fulfillment of criteria #4.  What treaties did "Palestine" enter into in 1948 which demonstrates a capacity to have relations with other states?


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > You are exactly right. Only a treaty can cede land or change borders. As such, the territory in question is still intact.
> ...



You're miles off topic. Israel is a sovereign nation. There is NO occupation. Israel sits on land designated by the last enforceable treaty for the creation of a Jewish homeland. Which is exactly what its been used for.

Didn't I have you on ignore Tinman ? How'd you end up in my feed again ?


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Israel sits on land designated by the last enforceable treaty for the creation of a Jewish homeland.
> ...


This is why you were on ignore. We've been over that a thousand times and you still pretend more than adequate validation to the point has not been offered. 

Israel is a sovereign state. its borders are fixed. Right smack where you'd pretend that fictional state of palestine once was.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

See, here's the foundation problem with your argument, Tinmore...If you take out the words "Israel" and "Jewish", and replace them with "Palestine" and "Palestinians" all the problems go away.  You don't argue against a government of "Palestine" -- even with the exact same parameters and criteria.  Indeed you argue vehemently FOR it.  

Its not the objective criteria which defines your argument -- its Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Britain established a Palestinian government that was separate from the Mandate. Palestine entered agreements in regards to citizenship, nationality, and travel. There was even a trade agreement with the US in 1932.

When Britain left, local Palestinian leaders got together and declared independence in 1948. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Put me back on ignore, please. I get the same tired old Israeli talking points from too many people already.

It was nice.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine entered agreements in regards to citizenship, nationality, and travel. There was even a trade agreement with the US in 1932.



Where some government of Palestine, other than the Israeli one, signed a treaty with another nation?  Links?  Be specific.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



In what dystopian fantasy did that happen ? 

As I recall this thread was about ISRAEL and its glorious existence by virtue of it having met certain criteria. A set of criteria that apparently escapes the pali mythos entirely 

So you are saying that a mythical state that never existed and has no discernible borders and no distinct people or culture was recognized by the recently defeated surrounding Arab armies in an effort to spare themselves from admitting defeat. 

Tell me more ;-)


----------



## Penelope (Aug 20, 2017)

Apparently it does now, since 1948 it declared itself a nation, at the expense of those who lived there.


----------



## Humanity (Aug 20, 2017)

Argueing over facts simply doesn't work... 

Israel exists, end of story!

Would it have better to have called 'Israel' 'Palestine' and have 'Palestine' as a Jewish state?

For me, I would say no... Simply because 'Israel' is the 'correct' name for a Jewish state! Further, had the name been 'Palestine' it could have led to the 'extinction' of 'Palestinians' as we know them and the state would have been what I choose to call 'Greater Israel'...

Of course, the flip side is ... Had the name been 'Palestine' would be actually have a conflict at all?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...





Boston1 said:


> As I recall this thread was about ISRAEL and its glorious existence by virtue of it having met certain criteria.


Not so. There is this bugaboo about a defined territory.

Israel took control and occupied 78% of Palestine, by military force, in '47-'48. It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force. This was a process that was separate from the 1948 war.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Ludicrous, Arabs stole 77% of the mandated area intended for the creation of the state of Israel and then demanded more ;-) By your count 22% of the remaining 23% Bringing the Israeli area down to about 18% of the original territory allotted. Arabs are occupying roughly 82% of Israel ;-) 

The area has been under hostile Arab occupation since its designation as the area for the Jewish homeland. Oh the horrors, when will this unjust Arab occupation end. 

Lets try and get the story strait Tiny old man


----------



## ProudVeteran76 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > You are exactly right. Only a treaty can cede land or change borders. As such, the territory in question is still intact.
> ...


 
Too bad the Arabs didn't feel that way before 1967. Look it up


----------



## Hollie (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Did the Arab armies not read the notice back in 1973 that "It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force."?


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

You are NOT suggesting that the Arab armies entertained thoughts of expanding their occupation are you ? 

Cause that would be illegal


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Oh jeese, more BS Israeli talking points.

Put me back on ignore.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



But don't you want to, um, what was your point again ? I guess it didn't make any sense the first time.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not so. There is this bugaboo about a defined territory.
> 
> Israel took control and occupied 78% of Palestine, by military force, in '47-'48. It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force. This was a process that was separate from the 1948 war.



There is no bugaboo about a defined territory.  You, yourself, have proven quite satisfactorily that the territory in question (we'll call it "Palestine" for convenience sake) had a clearly defined territory.  It had a clearly defined territory from 1924 with the Treaty of Lausanne, according to you.  

It also had a government (supported by the British, as was their mandate), a permanent population and, at the time of declaration of independence, the ability to have relations with other states.  It acquired no territory by force.  It acquired sovereignty in exactly the same way Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon acquired territory -- through treaty and other legal instruments, including your precious Treaty of Lausanne.  There is no difference between the way "Palestine" was formed and the way Syria was formed.  (Except, of course, no one attacked Syria).

Again, I will point out the actors who existed at the time.  They were Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq.  Every one of those actors had a defined territory.  Who crossed into other's defined territories?!  Who attempted to take by force what did not belong to them -- but belonged to another national entity (a full State, according to you)?!  Not Palestine.  Not once in 1947/48 did Palestine cross its own defined territory.  The other actors entered and invaded Palestine -- a territory which was OUTSIDE of THEIR defined territory.  

Palestine (renamed Israel) meets all of the criteria you provided.  You have no case.  



And I'm still waiting for those links I asked for.  Or are you giving up on that line of reasoning?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Argueing over facts simply doesn't work...
> 
> Israel exists, end of story!



Of course it does.  

But I think it is also important to examine the context of WHY people make assertions so in contrary to facts.  I mean, why would people DO that?

In this case, *it is a legal fiction in order to excuse and justify the murder of Jews*.  It is a common thread that lurks beneath the surface of what appears to be a legal argument.  And it exists in members of this board, as well as in the Arab Palestinian community.  It is a very dangerous idea and one that needs to be recognized and dealt with if we ever want to solve this conflict.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Palestine (renamed Israel) meets all of the criteria you provided. You have no case.


Links?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine (renamed Israel) meets all of the criteria you provided. You have no case.
> ...



What?!  That's it?!  Are you done?!  You are bailing?!

You are the one who has provided proof that Palestine has a defined territory, which is the only one of the four criteria even under dispute, again according to your own claims.  

Shall I link to your own quotes?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


It is irrefutable that Palestine has territory defined by international borders. And the Palestinians, as all peoples, have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.

Now, where is Israel and what is Israel?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Israel is the government of Palestine, which is in full accordance with the treaties made at the time of her re-constitution and all treaties since.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


That does not answer my questions.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

Sure it does. You just don't like the answer.

I'll simplify. 

Israel is Palestine. Palestine is Israel.  Wherever there is Palestine, it's Israel.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

Now for Humanity and Coyote and all my other pro-Palestine friends this does not in any way deny the existence of the Arab Palestinian people as a distinct people if they want to self-identify in that way. Nor does it prevent the eventual existence of a separate Arab Palestine.  And this does not include the Oslo Accords, which I intentionally left out because Tinmore does "believe" in those either.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Sure it does. You just don't like the answer.
> 
> I'll simplify.
> 
> Israel is Palestine. Palestine is Israel.  Wherever there is Palestine, it's Israel.


Will you *please* provide a Link to something that *doesn't* exist!


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Now for Humanity and Coyote and all my other pro-Palestine friends this does not in any way deny the existence of the Arab Palestinian people as a distinct people if they want to self-identify in that way. Nor does it prevent the eventual existence of a separate Arab Palestine.  And this does not include the Oslo Accords, which I intentionally left out because Tinmore does "believe" in those either.



There's already two separate Arab palestines, Once is Jordan, the other Gaza. Lets get the story straight here;-) 

While I can appreciate the effort you are putting in, there's already two palestines if you want to go there.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 20, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Sure it does. You just don't like the answer.
> 
> I'll simplify.
> 
> Israel is Palestine. Palestine is Israel.  Wherever there is Palestine, it's Israel.


What process was used and what was the end result?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it does. You just don't like the answer.
> ...



The same process which created Jordan.  Syria.  Lebanon.  Iraq.  Its all the same.  Why would it be any different?


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it does. You just don't like the answer.
> ...



Great question. most of the time, the antisemites are just miming the same old same old, but you've really hit on a new topic here. 

Lets see, organize my thoughts for a moment. By what process was Israel created ? Hmmm. 

Same process as all the other sovereign countries in the area, except in this case the surrounding, other newly formed Arab countries threw a tantrum because JUST ONE country was Judaic ;-)


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Now for Humanity and Coyote and all my other pro-Palestine friends this does not in any way deny the existence of the Arab Palestinian people as a distinct people if they want to self-identify in that way. Nor does it prevent the eventual existence of a separate Arab Palestine.  And this does not include the Oslo Accords, which I intentionally left out because Tinmore does "believe" in those either.
> ...



I know.  And I can appreciate that too.  In the end, I don't care who sits on what land or where new borders are drawn if they need to be drawn.  As long as those Arab Palestinians who remain in Israel are peaceful and end their wish to destroy the Jewish State.  I would prefer the conflict to end in a peace agreement between Israel and whoever else there is.  But if they have to be removed from Israel in order to keep the Jewish people safe, then, honestly, so be it.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 20, 2017)

P F Tinmore 

See, YOU are the one who keeps trying to make exceptions because people are Jewish.  The fact that one government of the five nations created at the time was ethnically Jewish makes absolutely no difference in the validity of the treaties involved.


----------



## montelatici (Aug 21, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Now for Humanity and Coyote and all my other pro-Palestine friends this does not in any way deny the existence of the Arab Palestinian people as a distinct people if they want to self-identify in that way. Nor does it prevent the eventual existence of a separate Arab Palestine.  And this does not include the Oslo Accords, which I intentionally left out because Tinmore does "believe" in those either.
> ...



How is Jordan Palestine?  It never was geographically or politically Palestine.  Let's get the story straight here.  Throwing a former province of the Arab Kingdom of Syria that the French weren't able to grab under the administrative control of the Palestine Mandate doesn't magically change the a territory from one to another.


----------



## montelatici (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> See, YOU are the one who keeps trying to make exceptions because people are Jewish.  The fact that one government of the five nations created at the time was ethnically Jewish makes absolutely no difference in the validity of the treaties involved.



The difference is that to create Israel, European settler colonists were transferred into Palestine through force of arms and the native and indigenous non-Jews were dispossessed.


----------



## Humanity (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Argueing over facts simply doesn't work...
> ...



I could probably make a few guesses as to why people think this... Though most guesses would revolve around questioning their sanity!

In a similar vein to those who question the existence of Palestine!

Seems pointless and futile!


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



How is questioning the existence of a country named Palestine in the same vein as questioning the existence of a country named Israel?

Israel was once a Nation.  On the land where it stands now.

When was there ever a country, not talking about a region, called Palestine, governed by people called Palestinians?

When have the Arabs, who are invaders from 1400 years ago into the area, ever called any one of their clans Palestinians, or any one of their groups, for that matter?

So, let me ask you:

Has a country called Palestine ever existed on the disputed land?
Does a country/state called Palestine exist today?
What were or are its borders?  Its capital, its currency?
Does it have an infrastructure not dependent of all the other countries which surround it?


The Jewish people have agreed to partition the Mandate for Palestine with the Arabs living on the land.
77 % of that land was taken without the Jews being even asked about it, to the Hashemites (who are not Palestinians)  in 1922.
The Jews agreed to partition the land  in 1937 and in 1947.

2000 was about negotiating and partitioning and coming to an end to the conflict.  And so was 2008.  The Jews accepted what was offered.  What did  the Arabs/Palestinians do during those attempts to end the conflict and create a Palestine State?

Which side says that the other does not exist as a country and/or has no right to exist, and wants to put an end to its existence by any means necessary?

Which side has it written in their charters that their goal is to destroy a country which already exists?

Which side has created an organization meant to help destroy an existing country by any means possible?
----------

There are so many more questions, but let stay with the ones above.

We are not against a Palestinian State although Jordan is already one, and Gaza should have become one after 2005.

We are for peaceful co-existance as it is been happening with Jordan, Egypt, and now Saudi Arabia and many other Arab countries.

What does it take for the Palestinian leadership to say enough, we will negotiate a final treaty just as Egypt and Jordan have done and put an end to all the waste of money and misery brought by their denial of the State Israel?

Look at all Jordan and Egypt and other Arab countries get by collaborating, negotiating, doing business with Israel. 


Why continue to say that Israel does not exist?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


There was quite a difference. In those countries the mandates established functioning, independent governments as charged by the LoN Covenant. Britain failed to do that in Palestine. They created a big mess then cut and run.

The mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> partition the Mandate for Palestine


The Mandate was not a place. It had no territory or borders. Therefor it could not be partitioned.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Which side says that the other does not exist as a country and/or has no right to exist, and wants to put an end to its existence by any means necessary?


That would be Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Does a country/state called Palestine exist today?


It does but it is occupied. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The ONLY difference between the other 3 Mandates and the Mandate for Palestine, is that the Mandate for Palestine was to be the recreation of the Nation of Israel giving sovereignty to the Jews of their ancient homeland.

The British were anti Jews, as per Christianity's teachings,  and did not want to give even one duma to the Jews to be sovereign of.

The Arabs were anti Jews, as per Islam's teachings, and did not want to give even one duma to the Jews to be sovereign of.

The British were defeated and Finally ran out of the land which did not belong to them, which they were to supervise until Israel was declared sovereign.  

Israel became sovereign after the British eventually left, which should have happened a decade or so before they did finally leave.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I was correct. The Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Have you actually read the entire treaty?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I have. What is your point?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Have you actually read the entire treaty?


P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


How long ago?
How many pages is it?
How many nations opted out when they wanted to opt out?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Your argument for this thread is the Treaty of "Lawrence of Arabia".
I want to know what you actually know about this Treaty.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I don't get your point.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

Humanity said:


> In a similar vein to those who question the existence of Palestine!



No.  Its not.  And I'll tell you why.  The context of the discussion is the legal permissibility to kill Jews. 

Those arguing that Palestine doesn't exist (while equally foolish since it HAS existed since the Oslo Accords, though it is not yet fully a State), do not argue it in the context of it being legally or morally permissible to kill Arabs.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




Your claim, then, is that the only difference between the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Israel is that Israel faced an immediate existential threat by multiple enemies both internal and external.  And yet it managed to not only survive as a government, but thrive.  Seems to me, this supports the fact that Israel had a functioning, well-established, strong, independent government, rather than the opposite.

The fact that there was internal unrest and aggression by other nations, though, does not negate the validity of the treaties which created all five nations.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > partition the Mandate for Palestine
> ...



Wait, what?!  More silliness.  The British Mandate for Palestine administered territory which had borders (the geographical area was labelled "Palestine").  The territory which was administered WAS partitioned.  Or are you arguing that Jordan doesn't exist either?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Which shows you're not nearly intelligent or educated enough to continuously mention the Treaty.
You're simply dropping the name of a document hoping no one calls you on it.
I'm calling you on it.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> It does but it is occupied. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory.



In order for Israel to "occupy" another state -- both those states have to exist.  Are you now retracting your claim that Israel does not exist?  Are you also retracting your claim that there is only one territorial unit?  Because, again, for one nation to occupy another, there must be two states and an established border between them.  

What you are really saying is that a Jewish government is somehow invalid (on the Jewish ancestral and historical homeland), because -- Joooooooos!  which is both repulsive and legally problematic.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

Tin, I'm getting bored.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > It does but it is occupied. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory.
> ...


We are defecting away from my initial questions without answering them.

Now, where is Israel and what is Israel?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You are dodging because you always yelp, "Treaty of Laussant proves Israel doesn't exist", yet when called on your familiarity with said document you run away with your head between your legs.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> We are defecting away from my initial questions without answering them.
> 
> Now, where is Israel and what is Israel?



I have answered them numerous times.  You just don't like the answer.

Israel is a State.  We know it is a State because it fulfills all of the criteria set out in the parameters of this discussion, and acts on the world stage just exactly as all the other States do.  Its territory is defined by treaty and entails ALL of what was known as "Palestine" in the Mandate period.  Israel is Palestine.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

If you are trying to prove that Israel does not exist (is not a State), it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate how Israel is differentiated from the norm.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > We are defecting away from my initial questions without answering them.
> ...


OK, so how did Palestine become Israel? Where did that authority come from?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> OK, so how did Palestine become Israel? Where did that authority come from?



From the same authority that created Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.  She just changed her name.  You can call her Palestine if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



How did Palestine became Jordan?  Where did the authority for that Arab clan, from Arabia, to claim 77% of the Mandate for Palestine come from?

Why isn't Jordan Palestine, or called Palestine?

Why don't all Palestinians move to the greatest part of Palestine......Jordan?

Do you have any answer to these puzzling questions?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so how did Palestine become Israel? Where did that authority come from?
> ...


Not only changed names but changed population and the right for that original population to create its own government.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore 

You keep trying to imply that there was some sort of magical change that occurred because "Palestine" is associated with Jews.  Treaties don't lose their validity because they are signed by Jews.  Governments don't lose their validity because they are majority Jewish.  States don't stop being states because of Jews.  States aren't prevented from becoming states because of Jews.  "Palestine" is still Palestine.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> ... the right for that original population to create its own government.



Ah.  So the real source of your argument is that Israel (Palestine)'s government was not fully representational.  Does a government which is not fully representational invalidate treaties?


----------



## Humanity (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...




Tut... Did I mention anything about Palestine being a "country"?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You are saying that Israel changed the name from Palestine to Israel.

So did the Hashemite clan which changed the name from Palestine (Transjordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine in 1920) to Jordan after they tried to annex Judea and Samaria to their new country after 1948).

Why do you make such a fuss over changes of names?

Mesopotamia became Iraq.  Is that also invalid?

The original population, you like it or not, is the Jewish population.
And they are the ones who were attacked and expelled from 1920 until 1948 from their homes and cities all over the Mandate.

And let us not forget how the indigenous Jewish population was removed from the area known as TransJordan by the Hashemite clan after they were granted that land by the British in 1925.

You remember only what you wish to remember, no matter how factual it is - or not.

The Arabs, whom you call the original population, chose not to share the land with the Jewish people on Jewish ancient homeland.

The Jews were the ones with the right to be upset and do everything to protect themselves from the endless riots, murders, rapes and expulsions they were forced to endure from 1920 until the end of the war of Independence in 1949.

Start accepting one fact at a time.

Jewish Homeland

Jewish rights to live anywhere in the Mandate.

That right taken away by the British who gave 77% to the Hashemites, who expelled all the Jews from that vast area.

Newly founded Arab countries decided to invade Israel after it declared Independence.  The Arabs lost.  And continue to lose attempting to take over the only 20% of sovereign Jewish State which has existed since 1948.

The Arabs do not acknowledge the Jews as being people, a people, or any kind of people.....period.  It is due to their Muslim culture.

What are you going to do?

Acknowledge that Jews are people/humans with the right to sovereignty over any part of their ancient homeland, or are you going to continue to deny that Jews possibly even exist, or are the real Jews, the indigenous people of that land?

You and others do not have that many choices to make.

Choosing the facts is what is preferred at any time and place.

Choosing the facts is what will put an end to this conflict/war against  the Jews  once all Muslim and Christian leaders put an end to their endless incitement and falsehoods against Israel and the Jewish people.

What is it going to be?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> You keep trying to imply that there was some sort of magical change that occurred because "Palestine" is associated with Jews.  Treaties don't lose their validity because they are signed by Jews.  Governments don't lose their validity because they are majority Jewish.  States don't stop being states because of Jews.  States aren't prevented from becoming states because of Jews.  "Palestine" is still Palestine.


You are bouncing around confusing the timeline for the procedures.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore
> ...


You are because the web sites that discuss the Treaty you so love discuss all of this and you simply ignore what doesn't fit your narrative.


----------



## Humanity (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > In a similar vein to those who question the existence of Palestine!
> ...



You see... There is a slight moving of goal posts here...

I did not read anything about the


Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > In a similar vein to those who question the existence of Palestine!
> ...



Of course, it is NOT "legal permissibility to kill Jews"....

Of course Israel exists

Of course Palestine exists

You'll be telling me next that the earth is flat! ;-)


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore
> ...



No, I am presenting simple concepts.  You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim.  Let's talk about timelines then.  Palestine became a defined territory in 1923.  Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.  (Well, Oslo, but let's leave that alone for the purposes of this thread).  We agree.

That defined territory has a permanent population.  It has  a government.  It has relations with other States.   This is the criteria for existence as a State.  So, why would you not consider it a State?!


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Of course, it is NOT "legal permissibility to kill Jews"....



Which is why I think it is important for the more reasonable pro-Palestine posters here to stand up against those sorts of claims and I thank you for it.


----------



## montelatici (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



You are an idiot.  Trans-Jordan was never a part of Palestine.  Adding the former province of the Arab Kingdom of Syria to the Mandate did not magically make the territory part of Palestine.  The court of the Arab Kingdom of Syria escaped to the province after the French captured the capital of the kingdom, Damascus and the Hashemites looked to Britain for protection.

The European Jews had never seen Palestine nor had their European ancestors.  The land is the homeland of the indigenous people that lived there before the British invasion and the resettlement of Europeans to the territory by the British.  That the native and indigenous people rejected Judaism and adopted Christianity and later most of them Islam as their religion did not change their ancestry.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It's actually comical to suggest that waves of conquest by Arab-Moslem invaders, Turk colonizers and European Christian Crusaders magically became native and indigenous people.


----------



## Humanity (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, it is NOT "legal permissibility to kill Jews"....
> ...



Shusha, Israel exists as does Palestine... No, they may not carry the same 'classification' but they DO exist!

And no one has the right to kill ANYONE, period, let alone based on a lie!


----------



## Humanity (Aug 21, 2017)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



Did he suggest that? "waves of conquest" became indigenous?

The invaders/colonizers/crusaders arrived in a land that did actually have indigenous people BEFORE they invaded/colonized/crusaded....

Banging about who was where first is pretty boring and pointless....

The situation is what it is... Focusing on trying to find solutions surely makes more sense than bickering about the past!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.


OK, this is good so far. This is the timeline.


The allied powers planned to divide the ME into successor states.

They defined the international borders for those successor states.

The Treaty of Lausanne released the territory and ceded the land to the respective states with the stipulation that the residents would become citizens of their respective state.

As the citizens of their new state, the Palestinians acquired the standard list of inalienable rights. 1) The right to self determination without external interference. 2) The right to independence and sovereignty. 3) The right to territorial integrity.

The Mandate’s failure to help create a functioning independent state had no affect on the inalienable rights above. The Mandate had no authority to violate any of the Palestinian’s basic rights.

The Mandate left Palestine but all of the Palestinian’s basic rights remained.
Now, how can you create Israel without violating any of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians?


----------



## montelatici (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.
> ...


 
Very concise and to the point PF.  I would add that Britain's active armed resistance to the Palestinian's (Muslim and Christian native people) struggle for self determination when they represented 90 plus percent of the population was the original sin, as eventually admitted by the British, in UN Resolution A/364.

"176. *With regard to the principle of self-determination*, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually,* it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.*


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.
> ...



The word Palestine is very confusing.  It was meant to confuse.
The British, not anyone else, chose to name that specific Mandate "Palestine".  (Palestine (the Roman version of it)  is what the Romans renamed Judea in 135 CE in order to humiliate the Jews and make them forget their homeland after they were defeated)

But this is what the Mandate for Palestine was for, and the people it was supposed to help create a State/country :

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and......

Art 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

*ART. 4.*
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country. 

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

--------------
The Mandate for Palestine was always meant to be the recreation of the Nation of the Jewish People.  The Jews would be sovereign over the land (all 100 % of it, including TransJordan) with all other people living under Jewish sovereignty. ( As they still do in Israel)

This is something many here cannot recognize much less allow.

During the Mandate, all of those living in the region called Palestine became known as Palestinians, because of the name given to the mandate, and not because there ever had been a people called Palestinians in the region. There were businesses and Passports with the name of Palestine, because the British named the mandate so.

It was up to the Jewish people to name their Nation, just as the Iraqis chose Iraq (the indigenous may have wanted to keep Mesopotamia, who knows), once they became recognized as a country and declared Independence. 

When Israel declared Independence in May 1948, their area of Palestine, after a second time rejected partition by the Arabs, became known as Israel.  The State of Israel.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

montelatici said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



You negligently avoided posting what immediately followed:

177. As to the claim that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because the community of Palestine has not been recognized as an independent nation and because the mandatory was given full powers of legislation and administration, it has been rightly pointed out by the Peel Commission:

" (a) That the provisional recognition of certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire as independent nations is permissible; the words are can be provisionally recognized, not 'will' or 'shall';

" _(b)_ That the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League;

" (c) That the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Ball-four Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have been treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sevres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate."154/


----------



## montelatici (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



The people of the region were called Palestinians by Herodutus in 400 BC.  They were called Palestinians when they were Christians in 400 AD as confirmed by the "the palstinian martyrs" work by Eusebius of Caesarea. Give it up. You are a liar.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.
> ...


Apparently, the Treaty is far more complex (it is) than your simple Romper Room explanation as nobody brought up the Treaty in after the 1948 war.
And yes, the Treaty goes on for many pages and you have no expertise on the Treaty itself or on Treaties in general.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

montelatici said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Too concise for a very lengthy and complex document.


----------



## montelatici (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Also think about it for a minute, what right had Britain to decide to take land from the people living on the land to give it to people living on another continent?  Does that make any sense?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.
> ...




Palestine (Israel) was created way back in step 3 outlined above.  A fully functioning and independent government was, in fact, created.   Therefore, in the context of this thread -- nothing prevents Israel from existing as a state.  All of the requirements have been fulfilled.  And you have failed to prove otherwise.  End.  



But to touch on a few things:

No one's inalienable rights were removed in anyway by the government of that territory.  The treaties guaranteed full civil rights for the Arab peoples under a Jewish State.  Those civil rights have been honored scrupulously by Israel in law.  (Unlawful discrimination exists, as it does everywhere).  (Unlike, the Jewish civil rights, also supposedly guaranteed under those same treaties, which were grossly violated by a number of the actors involved, and even many who should not have been involved.)

 Arab Palestinian people still have the right to self-determination, independence and sovereignty and territorial integrity.  They have not achieved these things yet.  But they have those rights.  

"Territorial integrity" does not prohibit ceding territory to form two new nations, from two existing ethnic groups.  It has been done dozens of times in the past hundred years since the end of the age of Empires.


----------



## montelatici (Aug 21, 2017)

Europeans were transferred to Palestine and land was taken from the native people to create a colony and to dispossess the inhabitants.  That's the only fact.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You mean like France, Britain and Spain had been doing for centuries?
But with Israel it's a problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

montelatici said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The UK's response for UN Resolution A/364. was:

All we say—and I made this reservation the other day—is that we should not have the sole responsibility for enforcing a solution which *is not accepted by both parties.*​

It was not accepted by both parties so the Security Council did not implement the partition plan.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The Jews would be sovereign over the land (all 100 % of it, including TransJordan) with all other people living under Jewish sovereignty.



And can I just point out that there is nothing inherently illegal about Jewish sovereignty.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Why can UN Resolution A/364 be found only on UNISPAL ?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Also think about it for a minute, what right had Britain to decide to take land from the people living on the land to give it to people living on another continent?  Does that make any sense?



We've already covered this.  Britain did no such thing.  Britain, and the international community as a whole, simply acknowledged the Jewish peoples existing rights to their historical homeland.  They gave them nothing.  They just acknowledged their existing rights. 

Just like if Israel ceded land to Palestine today -- she would not be "giving" Palestinians rights, she would only be acknowledging Arab Palestinians existing rights.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Europeans were transferred to Palestine and land was taken from the native people to create a colony and to dispossess the inhabitants.  That's the only fact.



Irrelevant to the topic -- which is whether or not Israel exists.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


You are bouncing around again.  What happened to step 4?

Who has the authority to cede territory?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> You are bouncing around again.  What happened to step 4?
> 
> Who has the authority to cede territory?



I am not bouncing around.  I am taking them in order.  Step 3 is State creation.  It comes first.  It ends the conversation for this thread.  I addressed step 4 in my follow-up comments.  

Who has the authority to cede territory?  Only the sovereigns.  Which is the government of Palestine (aka Israel).


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore 

You are STILL trying to make another magic entity appear that is NOT Israel.  There is none.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> You are STILL trying to make another magic entity appear that is NOT Israel.  There is none.


Link?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore
> ...



Again with the bail?!   I can not prove a negative.  If you have proof that another legal entity exists which meets your four criteria (permanent population, government, defined territory, capacity to enter into relations with other states) then BRING IT.  If not, just concede already and move on.

If you have proof that Israel does not qualify as a legal entity then BRING IT.  If not, just concede and move on.  



If I were you, I'd abandon the whole "Israel does not exist" thing.  Its just silly.  Instead, I would deflect the conversation to government representation, self-determination for only one people, and even apartheid.  Those are all MUCH better arguments.  Still lame arguments.  But much better than this one.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

Like most every other thread in this forum, this thread has devolved into the usual Tinmore / Monty cut and paste slogans replete with the usual chatter of "links", "Zionist Invasions" and the Magical transformation of Turks, Islamist invaders and Christian Crusaders into  "indigenous, native Arabs".


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Speaking of bouncing, you haven't answered my questions concerning your Treaty of "Lawrenrce of Arabia".
Probably because you're a sound-bite bullshit artist.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


As I posted lasted night in honor of PF, *please* provide a Link to something that *doesn't* exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You are bouncing around again.  What happened to step 4?
> ...


My bad. I tried to make it simple for you. The Treaty of Lausanne actually states:

*“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
Were European Jews habitual residents of Turkey in 1923?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Not a single mention of Pal'istan. It's odd, because you cut and paste the blurb above into thread after thread and never manage to make any case for your invented "country of Pal'istan".


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Of course that was confirmed by the Mandate itself.
--------
The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> My bad. I tried to make it simple for you. The Treaty of Lausanne actually states:
> 
> *“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Were European Jews habitual residents of Turkey in 1923?




Cough cough.  You tried to make it simple for yourself by asking an irrelevant question.  Habitual residents are habitual residents regardless of whatever label you want to put on them to demonize them.  Yes, the habitual residents of Palestine were to become citizens of Palestine (aka Israel).  *How does that clause prevent the existence of Palestine (Israel)?  Where does this clause prevent a state from forming?  Where does this clause prevent the formation of a government?  Even a GASP! The HORROR! a government for a Jewish State?! * Where does this clause prohibit immigration or the acceptance of Jewish refugees?  

Sounds to me like you want to reframe the argument from "Israel does not exist" to "Israel did not grant citizenship to all the residents in her territory as she was compelled to do".  Did you want to do that?  Did you want to withdraw your previous claim and start a new one?   I'll start a thread for it.  I'm very accommodating that way.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Yes, the habitual residents of Palestine were to become citizens of Palestine (aka Israel).


Then why are millions of Palestinians not Israelis?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Of course, you're choosing to carelessly shuffle various elements of two completely different documents.

It really is hilarious. The fraud you were hoping to committ with your cut and paste snippet from the treaty of Lausanne was shown to be a fraud, so, as you have done before, you cut and paste a snippet from a different document.

So, we can agree that the treaty of Lausanne never created your Magical Kingdom of Pally'Land. By the wave of what Magical wand did the Mandate create you Magical Kingdom of Pally'land?


Links?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the habitual residents of Palestine were to become citizens of Palestine (aka Israel).
> ...



Because they and a number of aggressor states started a f*%ing war against the sovereign government.  What would have happened had there been no war?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You are just blowing smoke. I was showing continuity. International law states that normal residents get citizenship in the successor state if sovereignty changes. The Treaty of Lausanne echoed that law. Then the Mandate followed with the same principle.  Even Resolution 181 states that all Palestinians who normally reside in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will become citizens of that state.

In the middle of all that continuity is the statement that gives Palestinians citizenship in the state of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Since about 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the start of the war, we can predict that the ethnic cleansing would have continued.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Well, that's odd you would reference 181 when you have whined repeatedly:

One State

"Resolution 181 was rejected and abandoned by the UN. It was never implemented by the Security Council. It has no relevance."

Why use 181 in your comment when you have repeatedly dismissed it as not relevant?


Otherwise, I always do get a chuckle when you issue your "legal briefs for dummies" which
a) make no sense,
b) rely on gross misrepresentations of historical data you are befuddled with and,
c) rely on argumentation you have earlier poo-poo'd. <----- that's a legal term, BTW


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You mean like the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people which occurred all throughout the ME?  What is your point?!

And how is it relevant to whether or not Israel exists?  Did you want to re-frame your claim?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Since about 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the start of the war, we can predict that the ethnic cleansing would have continued.



Be clear, I don't agree that Israel had a policy of ethnic cleansing but....sure.  Let's go with that.

We could predict that there would be an exchange of population and very likely, as in most places where a population exchange occurred post-era-in-discussion, there would have been a lasting peace.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Hollie said:


> Why use 181 in your comment when you have repeatedly dismissed it as not relevant?


I was just showing the consistency of citizenship and state succession. Even though Resolution 181 did not happen it did reference that citizenship principle.

You are just grasping at straws.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The Israeli talking point is that Israel does not occupy Palestine because Palestine never existed. I am just correcting that misinformation. That is just laying the correct groundwork.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Israel does NOT occupy Palestine.

Israel IS Palestine.  It always has been, since the Romans changed the name of Judea to Filistina.

The British simply reused the insulting name for the Mandate to continue to insult the Jewish People as they had no intention to allow the Jews to become sovereign over their ancient homeland.

Israel is Palestine. (The Region of Palestine, the Mandate for Palestine)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Be clear, I don't agree that Israel had a policy of ethnic cleansing but....sure. Let's go with that.


Ethnic cleansing was necessary. The Zionists wanted a Jewish majority state when they were only 1/3 of the population. There is only one remedy for that problem. They had to get rid of a lot of the wrong kind of people.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Be clear, I don't agree that Israel had a policy of ethnic cleansing but....sure. Let's go with that.
> ...



You mean the way the Arabs got rid of Jews in their Jewish homes and cities in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and in 1948? 

That way?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Be clear, I don't agree that Israel had a policy of ethnic cleansing but....sure. Let's go with that.
> ...



Oh, I forgot.

The way the Hashemites got rid of the "wrong kind of people" in TranJordan in 1925 from the 77% of the Mandate for Palestine they were given......just like that !


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Israeli talking point is that Israel does not occupy Palestine because Palestine never existed. I am just correcting that misinformation. That is just laying the correct groundwork.



The "Israeli talking point" is actually that Palestine as a State inhabited by and governed by only Arabs has never existed.  Palestine most certainly exists as a State.  Its a Jewish State.  With a Jewish government.  As necessitated by the treaties involved.  It has non-Jewish, Arab citizens.  Whose civil rights have never been denied in law, despite both internal hostility and external unlawful aggression.  As necessitated by the treaties involved. 

The "correct groundwork" is that Palestine is the State for the Jewish people based on their historical and ancestral connection to that territory.  It exists.  It has the RIGHT to exist.  



The suggestion that the Arabs in the area should have more land, or more sovereignty, or (what they are really asking for) EXCLUSIVE sovereignty are different discussions.  But I'd be glad to have them with you.  If you are willing to accept EQUAL rights for the Jewish people.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Why use 181 in your comment when you have repeatedly dismissed it as not relevant?
> ...


How were you showing consistency of citizenship when you failed to show  anything consistent and more to the point, you tried to bolster your attempt at argument with a UN resolution you have consistently derided as "irrelevant".


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Israeli talking point is that Israel does not occupy Palestine because Palestine never existed. I am just correcting that misinformation. That is just laying the correct groundwork.



And also, in point of fact, this whole thing came up because you said it was just hunky dorey for Gaza to lob rockets at Israeli citizens (read: Jews) because Israel doesn't exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> The "Israeli talking point" is actually that Palestine as a State inhabited by and governed by only Arabs has never existed.


The Palestinians have the right to govern themselves. The fact that illegal external interference has violated that right does not negate that right.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


How could you miss that?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Ethnic cleansing was necessary. The Zionists wanted a Jewish majority state when they were only 1/3 of the population. There is only one remedy for that problem. They had to get rid of a lot of the wrong kind of people.



Its a vexing problem wherever an ethnic minority wants to have self-determination.  The Arab Palestinians use the same concept when demanding the end to the settlements.  What do you suggest is the solution?  Perhaps worthy of another thread?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Israeli talking point is that Israel does not occupy Palestine because Palestine never existed. I am just correcting that misinformation. That is just laying the correct groundwork.
> ...


That is correct except you put in that Jew thing. I never said that.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The "Israeli talking point" is actually that Palestine as a State inhabited by and governed by only Arabs has never existed.
> ...



Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to govern themselves.  We agree on the concept.  

You are the one denying the right of Jewish people from governing themselves.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The "Israeli talking point" is actually that Palestine as a State inhabited by and governed by only Arabs has never existed.
> ...



The Arabs-Moslems masquerading as Pal'istanians are governing themselves so well that they have two, albeit hostile, competing governments. 

It seems that as usual, you are looking for excuses to explain the failures and ineptitudes that define the Pal'istanians which similarly defines the rest of the Arab-Moslem Middle East. 

Take away Israel tomorrow and nothing, not a single element that causes the disasters of Arab-Moslem societal dysfunction will change.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Good to know that you own up to supporting the killing of innocent civilians.  Wait....that's NOT good, is it?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Can you prove your points?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You have read page one of The Treaty of Lausanne on a web site and you're trying to make it sound like you're a Treaty expert.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Why would anybody try when all you do is go around in circles?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Are illegal settlers living on stolen land "innocent civilians?"


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Can you prove who was illegal?
It's kind of difficult since anybody living there was called a Palestinian.
I presume you read that fact.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

Treaty of Lausanne | Allies-Turkey [1923]

Someone please show me the word "Palestine"...I'll wait.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

Lausanne Treaty

Another Link.
I'm sure everyone here is an expert at this Treaty which is the size of War & Peace.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

From Rep. of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Another Link.
I'm sure everyone here is an expert at this Treaty which is the size of War & Peace.

Do you have any more bullshit for us, Tin?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> Treaty of Lausanne | Allies-Turkey [1923]
> 
> Someone please show me the word "Palestine"...I'll wait.


Or Lebanon, or Syria. or Jordan, or Iraq.

Do you have a point?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...





Indeependent said:


> Can you prove who was illegal?


I'm working on that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Indeed, staying on point with all this deflection is a problem.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



But this whole conflict is about the JEW THING.  Don't be naive.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The WHOLE point of this thread proves my point.  You are claiming that a Jewish State doesn't exist.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Give me a break.  Why are the Gazans still fighting?  If not because of the Jew thing.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...




Let me re-phrase that.  You are claiming that a State doesn't exist because....JOOOOOOOOs


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No deflection on my part.
You are, in your own way, insulting all the experts who put so much work into this Treaty by trivializing it into your own personal vendetta.
I suggest *you* stay on point by respecting the complexity of this Treaty because it's the *only* weapon you *think* you have in your arsenal.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


How are you *working* on that?
You have spent the last few years here claiming you had *everything* nailed down.
Now I call you on the carpet and am proving what a fool you are.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The Jew thing is irrelevant. It would be no different if the occupation was Hindu.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


What did I post that was incorrect?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



They are in no way illegal settlers.  They are citizens of the sovereign.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Jew thing is irrelevant. It would be no different if the occupation was Hindu.



Well.  Yes and no.  

The relevancy is the demand by Arab Muslims for ethnic homogeneity or exclusive sovereignty, even on land which has another claimant for rights to ancestral and historical land.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Read the Treaty and you will realize (actually, you won't realize anything because you're not too good at inferring one thing from another) how much you are exaggerating the emphasis on the British Mandate, which is only referred to in the Treaty.
In fact, the major emphasis is on the borders of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Trans-Jordan, and not on Palestine itself.
The British, in fact, took off in 1948, absconding any responsibiltiy they had in the Treaty which leaves you having to blame
BRITAIN
for any undoing that occurred to the Arabs of Palestine once the 5 Arab armies prepared to attack Palestine.

Of course, you can't read anything but your own version of history so I presume you will click the smile icon.

What really makes me laugh you is that you often refer to Wikipedia as Hasbara, but the only website that even mentions the British Mandate for simplicity's sake is Wikipedia.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 21, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Jew thing is irrelevant. It would be no different if the occupation was Hindu.
> ...


Palestine has always been a multi religious place. The vast majority of the people have no issue with that.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



So, tell us about the multi-religious place that is Gaza'istan or Fatah'istan. Tell us how it is that your role as propaganda minister and your pronouncements on behalf of "the vast majority of the people" conflicts with the reality on the ground in Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere across the Islamist Middle East where minority religions are under siege.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine has always been a multi religious place. The vast majority of the people have no issue with that.



"Palestine" has most certainly NOT always been a multi-religious place.  It was a First Nations place.  That other religions moved in and usurped both territory and history does NOT make it a multi-religious place.  It only makes it a place where others have invaded and colonized.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 21, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine has always been a multi religious place. The vast majority of the people have no issue with that.



The vast majority of people have no issue with multi-religions?!  Really?!  Muslims have no issue with multi-religions?!  In holy sites like the Temple Mount?!

Bull.  Emphasis.  Shit.  

Then why the Days of Rage over Jews and their "filthy feet" in "YOUR" holy place?!  Why all the BS about preventing Jewish prayer in our most holy place?  Why this summer's crap about "Don't you DARE put security on OUR holy site"?


----------



## montelatici (Aug 22, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine has always been a multi religious place. The vast majority of the people have no issue with that.
> ...



Palestine was always a multi-religion area from the earliest days.  When the Hebrews invaded there were already several religions practiced/Gods worshipped in the area.  Baal, Astarte and other Gods were worshipped and continued to be worshipped during and after a relatively short Hebrew period.  Subsequently, with  Assyrian and Babylonian rule, additional religions were practiced where Gods like An and Hamash were added to the multi-religious area.  With the Romans, Roman Gods began to be worshipped by the populace, and of course, Christianity joined the religious mix.  In time most of the people of the area converted to Islam, and that's where we are today.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 22, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Notice that all of those came after the start of the Zionist settler colonial project.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Notice you don't understand history. 

Notice that Arab-Moslem settler colonial waqf project demanded exclusive rights and privileges to the geographic area of Pal'istan.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 22, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Instead, I would deflect the conversation to government representation, self-determination for only one people, and even apartheid.


OK, if you want to go there.

Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force. Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of settlers.

A government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The Israeli government was established with the virtual unanimous opposition of the native population.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, I would deflect the conversation to government representation, self-determination for only one people, and even apartheid.
> ...



Well that's odd because Jews aquired large tracts of land from absentee land owners in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Not exactly what one would describe as a "native population". What timeline did you use to define the Islamic settler colonial project, the Turk invasion and the European Christian Crusaders as magically transforming into the.... wait for it..... here it comes....t_he indigenous, native Arab population™_


----------



## Hollie (Aug 22, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Does your sweaty, chest-heaving indignation also apply to the European Christian Crusaders?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, I would deflect the conversation to government representation, self-determination for only one people, and even apartheid.
> ...



Israel is the government of the indigenous Jewish people in their historical and ancestral homeland.  It was not created by military force, but by the same treaties which established the other nations that became independent at the same time.  It was created, expressly, for the purpose of reconstituting the Jewish nation, as entrenched in the treaties and other legal instruments at the time.  There is nothing "foreign" about it.  That is a myth which was created to delegitimize Jewish rights.

It was compelled to use force only to defend itself from external aggressors who illegally entered Palestinian territory.  



None of these things make a ruling government invalid nor poofs a state out of existence.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 22, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Of course you did not refute anything in my post.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course you did not refute anything in my post.



Of course you do your usual bail when you don't like my answers.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 22, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you did not refute anything in my post.
> ...


Blowing smoke is not answer.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 22, 2017)

The only one blowing smoke is you.  18 pages and you have yet to come up with a single reason why Israel does not exist.

Here I'll help you out.  The closest you've come is in the last post.  You are claiming that the government of Palestine does not accurately represent the people of Palestine.  That point has some validity.  

It does not negate the treaties or legal instruments which created Palestine (Israel).  But it does bring up some very good questions -- in particular about how minorities should be treated and whether or not minorities and First Nations peoples have a right to self-determination.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 22, 2017)

It also brings up questions concerning ethnically homogeneous populations and whether they are necessary in order to assert minority rights.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 22, 2017)

Shusha said:


> The only one blowing smoke is you.  18 pages and you have yet to come up with a single reason why Israel does not exist.
> 
> Here I'll help you out.  The closest you've come is in the last post.  You are claiming that the government of Palestine does not accurately represent the people of Palestine.  That point has some validity.
> 
> It does not negate the treaties or legal instruments which created Palestine (Israel).  But it does bring up some very good questions -- in particular about how minorities should be treated and whether or not minorities and First Nations peoples have a right to self-determination.



I think Israel has a lot of wiggle room on that one. The only portion of the population that "may" not be "accurately" represented in Israel is the remaining Arab combat forces, Mostly their decedents at this point and Israel is not responsible for them. They should be segregated from legitimate refugees and sent packing. It'd likely eliminate a huge part of the problem. It's actually a responsibility outlined in the Geneva Conventions AND its in the UN charter that combatants MUST be segregated from the civilian population. 

Israel is in no way responsible to give enemy combatants a voice in its government


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 22, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The only one blowing smoke is you.  18 pages and you have yet to come up with a single reason why Israel does not exist.
> ...



Are you referring to enemy combatants from 1948?
All of those were expelled.
None of them were allowed to stay because they did fight against Israel.

What one does have now are the descendants of those Arabs who did stay, and infiltrators, who tend to incite, encourage attacks on Jews, etc.
Those are permanent residents or citizens of Israel.

If they commit a crime they are arrested.  In the most extreme cases, they may be deported.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 22, 2017)

Frankly, one of the reasons I encourage a State of Palestine is to give criminals who act against the State of Israel a place to be deported TO.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 22, 2017)

Yeah, that would be Jordan since they're so vocal about Jordan being palestine and palestine being Jordan.

I'm thinking since the war has never really ended not only are there a lot of people who've become combatants, but their descendants have also lost any rights to be treated as civilians under the Geneva Conventions. The UN states that families should not be split up, which I'd agree with entirely and so they should be given the option of repatriation along with the combatant and his/her decedents 

Also the limitations of the policy are clearly defined in the Conventions. So anyone even suspected of aiding a combatant can be considered a combatant and repatriated. Repatriation does NOT have to be voluntary and the host nation is NOT responsible for what happens to those repatriated once they are beyond the host nations borders.

IE Israel would be perfectly within its rights to simply drive them to the nearest debarkation point and "debark" them ;-)

Throw the bums out.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 22, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> Yeah, that would be Jordan since they're so vocal about Jordan being palestine and palestine being Jordan.
> 
> I'm thinking since the war has never really ended not only are there a lot of people who've become combatants, but their descendants have also lost any rights to be treated as civilians under the Geneva Conventions. The UN states that families should not be split up, which I'd agree with entirely and so they should be given the option of repatriation along with the combatant and his/her decedents
> 
> ...


Please hold on for Tinmore to paraphrase incorrectly from a photoshopped document he has on his wall.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 22, 2017)

Shusha said:


> It does not negate the treaties or legal instruments which created Palestine (Israel).


Links?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > It does not negate the treaties or legal instruments which created Palestine (Israel).
> ...


You're requesting yet another Link to something that *doesn't* exist.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 22, 2017)

Yo Tiny 

If you are referring to some mythical creation of a palestinian state you're out of luck. They named it Jordan and Gaza. So you'll have to search those names instead.

If you are referring to the massive thread which goes over the Geneva Conventions extensively. then use the search tool and do your own homework for a change.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > It does not negate the treaties or legal instruments which created Palestine (Israel).
> ...



Wait, what?!  You want me to provide a link to an instance where a legal treaty between nations or the international community was negated without the consent of the parties involved?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 22, 2017)

Shusha said:


> I was loathe to begin a new thread on this topic when it came up on another one, because, quite frankly, the claim is so ridiculous it does not deserve discussion, let alone its own thread.  However, since it is likely to drive the other thread off-topic...
> 
> The claim made on the other thread was that *Israel does not exist*.  The context of this assertion is the vile notion that it is not possible to commit a crime against Israel or Israelis (read: Jews), including war crimes and humanitarian crimes -- thus absolving Arabs of all wrong-doing when Israel (read: Jews) is the target.
> 
> ...


*Drumbeat to Doomsday*

Contrary to the way we are told to think, you're not pro-Israel enough.  If a country attacks another with the intent to wipe it off the map, one of the ways to prevent such aggression is to make it forfeit territory if it loses. So not only should Israel never have given up the territory it won in the Six Day War, it should annex southern Lebanon, which the Lebanese let Hezbollah win.  Jews, of all people, should know better than to indulge in appeasement, just to be fashionably multicultural.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 23, 2017)

Israel didn't want the Sinai anyway. It was always going to be a headache so they were happy to give it back. Look at all the trouble the Egyptians are having with it now and tell me Israel needed another lawless massive stretch of land. Same reason they were happy to turn over Gaza to the unwashed masses. A its a second palestinian state and B its one less headache for Israel to have to administrate aid too. OOPS they still administrate aid


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 23, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine has always been a multi religious place. The vast majority of the people have no issue with that.
> ...


Like the Hebrews did when they came up from Egypt.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Aug 23, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



1)  The Hebrews did not force their religion on others
2)  The Land had been in control of Egypt and later the Philistines 
before David defeated the latter one.  Neither were indigenous to the land.
3) All the tribes in Canaan eventually became part of Israel as a Nation
4) The Arabs were living a nice or waring life in the Arabian Peninsula, 5000 years before any one of them came to call themselves Palestinians for the mere purpose of destroying any sovereignty regained by the descendants of the Hebrews.

5)No.  It is not like the Hebrews did when they came up from Egypt.


If you ever find out what the Arabs were doing one against the other clan in Arabia 5000 years ago, let us know.  It would not be any different than what was happening in Canaan, in the Americas, in Europe or anywhere else.  Fighting for, defending and keeping territory.

The Romans, the Greeks, the Arab Muslims, the European Crusaders or the British.  Those are all invaders to a Nation which had formed over 3000 years ago, already existed and continued to exist and be populated by the indigenous people, the Jews, 
with their religion, culture and history intact.

And it continues to exist as the State of Israel today.


----------



## montelatici (Aug 23, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Those that practiced Judaism, Paganism, Samaritanism and other religions in the Roman province of Palestine converted to Christianity, an indigenous religion of Palestine before the Arabians invaded and ruled.  Like the Romans and the Ottomans later, the Arabians were not settler colonists they came to rule as a ruling class.

The invading European settler colonists were indigenous to Europe and have robbed the descendants of the indigenous people of Palestine of their ancestral homeland.  The Europeans are the invaders the Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the descendants of the indigenous people.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 23, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It's truly comical to read your befuddled commentaries on indigenous people. How did the invading Christians from Europe magically transform into indigenous people?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Aug 23, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> Israel didn't want the Sinai anyway. It was always going to be a headache so they were happy to give it back. Look at all the trouble the Egyptians are having with it now and tell me Israel needed another lawless massive stretch of land. Same reason they were happy to turn over Gaza to the unwashed masses. A its a second palestinian state and B its one less headache for Israel to have to administrate aid too. OOPS they still administrate aid


*"Making the Desert Bloom"*

The Sinai has an oil deposit worth $500 billion dollars. The obvious cause of the giveway is slavishness to degenerate transnationalist opinion and pressure from the perfidious American regime, which has been playing on both sides since the 1956 Suez War.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 23, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



BZZZZZZZZZZ wrong. There is no archeological evidence to support that particular mythos. 

The Bible Unearthed. 

The Hyksos of the mid bronze age developed into the Hebrew people exactly where they are today. IE tribal and indigenous rights puts Israelis claim to the area in its proper historical context based on hard science.


----------



## montelatici (Aug 23, 2017)

*How can Europeans be indigenous to Palestine?*

*"Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Indigenous Europe, Not Middle East"*

*Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Indigenous Europe, Not Middle East*


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 23, 2017)

montelatici said:


> *How can Europeans be indigenous to Palestine?*
> 
> *"Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Indigenous Europe, Not Middle East"*
> 
> *Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Indigenous Europe, Not Middle East*


It might make sense that all the intelligent Christians and Muslims left their bullshit religions.
Of course a Christian or Muslim in Palestine that converted to any religion but Islam would be beheaded.


----------



## montelatici (Aug 23, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > *How can Europeans be indigenous to Palestine?*
> ...



How do Muslim Palestinians convert to Islam? However, Palestinians that had not already converted to Christianity did convert to Christianity after Christianity became the state religion of Rome. That was around 400 AD.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 23, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


And then the intelligent ones became Jews.
I'm down with that!


----------



## montelatici (Aug 23, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Sure they did.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 23, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


You said it way before I did.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 28, 2017)

Shusha said:


> The only one blowing smoke is you.  18 pages and you have yet to come up with a single reason why Israel does not exist.
> 
> Here I'll help you out.  The closest you've come is in the last post.  You are claiming that the government of Palestine does not accurately represent the people of Palestine.  That point has some validity.
> 
> It does not negate the treaties or legal instruments which created Palestine (Israel).  But it does bring up some very good questions -- in particular about how minorities should be treated and whether or not minorities and First Nations peoples have a right to self-determination.





Shusha said:


> The only one blowing smoke is you. 18 pages and you have yet to come up with a single reason why Israel does not exist.


Not really. Nobody has posted evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land. As far as I can tell Israel sits inside Palestine, i.e. an occupation.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. Nobody has posted evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land. As far as I can tell Israel sits inside Palestine, i.e. an occupation.



There are not two legal entities in Palestine.  There were never two legal entities created.  There is only one.  Israel doesn't sit "in" Palestine.  Israel IS Palestine.  They are one and the same.  That's WHY Israel has a border with Jordan.  And another with Egypt.  And another with Syria.  

If Israel doesn't exist, it can't be occupying anyone.  So clearly you believe it exists.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 28, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Not really. Nobody has posted evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land. As far as I can tell Israel sits inside Palestine, i.e. an occupation.
> ...


Of course you don't provide any evidence to prove your point.

Nobody ever does. They just blow smoke.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course you don't provide any evidence to prove your point.
> 
> Nobody ever does. They just blow smoke.



You want evidence that Israel has a border with Jordan?  And with Egypt?  And with Syria?   

You want evidence that Israel has a government?

You want evidence that Israel has the capacity to enter into relations with other states?

Seriously?  These things are self-evident.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 28, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you don't provide any evidence to prove your point.
> ...


Shhh...
Tintard knows something no one else on earth knows.
Let's keep it that way.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 28, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you don't provide any evidence to prove your point.
> ...


Nice deflection. That wasn't the question.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 28, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


So then why do the Palestinians call Israel 48?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No matter how much proof you are presented with you shrink back into the fantasy world of documents you can't even understand.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


They live with the fantasy that Jordan won something.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


It's nice to know you define nations by what protestors scream.
You really are a moron.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 28, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Do you mean the documents that nobody has posted?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The documents you refer to that are 100s of pages long and don't say what you say they say.
It's also nice that you determine a nation's existence by what rioting blue collar Palestinians have to say.

Maybe you're right; maybe Israel doesn't exist.
Maybe that why every Muslim terrorist organization on earth is dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel.
Because Israel doesn't exist.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




That IS the question for this thread.  That is exactly the question for this thread.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Did you want me to try to prove a negative?  That Arab "Palestine" doesn't exist?  Can't do that.  But I can suggest you provide me with evidence that Arab Palestine had a government in 1948.  I can suggest you provide evidence of territory under the control of that government in 1948.  I can suggest you provide evidence of that government entering into relations with other States.  

In the absence of such evidence, the conclusion that Arab "Palestine" existed as a State in 1948, or earlier, is just plain silly.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 28, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you mean the documents that nobody has posted?



What documents are you waiting for us to post?  We agree with you about the documents which created "Palestine".  There is no need to post them because we accept them.  Where we differ is that you pretend that the legal entity which was "Palestine" somehow CAN'T be governed by Jews and therefore the government and State which clearly is Jewish must not exist.  So post me a document which says that a government or a State can't be Jewish.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 28, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean the documents that nobody has posted?
> ...


Tardmore's usual bullshit of requesting a Link for something that doesn't exist.

He's an embarrassment to honest Palestinians.


----------



## Humanity (Aug 30, 2017)

I have found the evidence that Israel REALLY exists!

Google Maps

Good enough for me!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 30, 2017)

Humanity said:


> I have found the evidence that Israel REALLY exists!
> 
> Google Maps
> 
> Good enough for me!


Why do they always show Israel inside fake borders?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > I have found the evidence that Israel REALLY exists!
> ...


Approach those borders you claim are fake while waving your Koran and screeching out Allah akbar. Let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 30, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Blah, blah, blah.

Fake borders defended by a fake state.


----------



## Boston1 (Aug 30, 2017)

Yada yada yada 

Phony people defined by a phony narrative about a phony place that never existed 

For instance, Ass Oh Fat was Egyptian wasn't he ?????? 
British Mandate was carved out of Southern Syria wasn't it ?????? 
Muslims came from Arabia didn't they ????? 
Jordan is palestine and palestine is Jordan, or at least thats what THE KING OF JORDAN SAYS. 

LOL


----------



## Humanity (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > I have found the evidence that Israel REALLY exists!
> ...



Where ARE the borders then?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I've come to expect that "Blah, blah, blah" encapsulates your very best efforts at forming sentences into expressions of coherent thoughts.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


There aren't any.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

Humanity

Tinmore's claim is that there has never been any legal instrument or treaty which divides what was formerly the Mandate for Palestine -- thus, legally it is one sovereign territorial unit.  (He is entirely correct on this point).

He further claims that Israel is a non-legal entity with no defined borders which sits within the (legal) State of Palestine (which was created somewhere between 1922 and 1925).  (And he is ridiculously incorrect on this point).


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Humanity
> 
> Tinmore's claim is that there has never been any legal instrument or treaty which divides what was formerly the Mandate for Palestine -- thus, legally it is one sovereign territorial unit.  (He is entirely correct on this point).
> 
> He further claims that Israel is a non-legal entity with no defined borders which sits within the (legal) State of Palestine (which was created somewhere between 1922 and 1925).  (And he is ridiculously incorrect on this point).





Shusha said:


> He further claims that Israel is a non-legal entity with no defined borders which sits within the (legal) State of Palestine (which was created somewhere between 1922 and 1925). (And he is ridiculously incorrect on this point).


OK, so prove your point.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity
> ...



Reasons why Israel is a State, since 1948, according to the criteria you provided:

It has a defined territory (the territory defined by the Mandate for Palestine).  It has a government.  It has a permanent population.  It has the demonstrated capacity to enter into relations with other States (existing treaties, recognition at the UN, trade agreements, formal diplomatic relations.)


Reasons why "Palestine" is not a State (ignoring Oslo):

It does not have a government.  It does not have the capacity to enter into relations with other States.  You could argue that it had a defined territory (the territory defined by the Mandate for Palestine).  And that it has a permanent population.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The Mandate for Palestine was not a place. It had no territory or borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...





Shusha said:


> Reasons why Israel is a State, since 1948, according to the criteria you provided:
> 
> It has a defined territory


Link?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate for Palestine was not a place. It had no territory or borders.



Oh give me a break.  Why do you insist on using this ridiculous argument?  The territory which was labelled the Mandate for Palestine was defined in all of the legal instruments of the day and the borders were clearly delineated.  There is no dispute or question about where "Palestine" begins or ends.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Link?



You keep going back to the same request for "links" for things demonstrated over and over and over again.  

Look, you CAN'T have it both ways.  Either there is no delineated border for "Palestine" or there is.  Which is it?    

If you argue that there ARE borders which define Palestine -- we agree.  We have no dispute about where the borders are, so just stop asking for further information and "links" about borders.  The dispute between you and I isn't about the existence of borders -- that's just you blowing smoke.  We agree that there are legal borders and we agree that there is only one sovereign for the entire territory.  

Israel has clear legal claim to the entire territory because that territory has never been divided.  Israel clearly meets the four criteria you provided as a "test" of whether a state exists or not.  Proof is in the legal border between Israel and Jordan (by treaty -- which means by international law) and between Israel and Egypt (by treaty -- which means by international law).


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

Let's put it another way.  Syria has borders, right?  Jordan has borders.  Lebanon and Iraq have borders.  

So why wouldn't Palestine have borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Mandate for Palestine was not a place. It had no territory or borders.
> ...





Shusha said:


> There is no dispute or question about where "Palestine" begins or ends.


Indeed, and the Mandate was merely the trustee. It did not own anything.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

Not saying that it did.  Just pointing out that the borders exist.  They don't just stop existing because.....Jooooooos.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Link?
> ...





Shusha said:


> We agree that there are legal borders and we agree that there is only one sovereign for the entire territory.


Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Look it up.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Let's put it another way.  Syria has borders, right?  Jordan has borders.  Lebanon and Iraq have borders.
> 
> So why wouldn't Palestine have borders?


Palestine does have borders.

When was there a treaty with Palestine altering their borders?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.



In order for there to be an "occupation" -- there must exist two separate legal entities.  One is the sovereign of the entire territory of Palestine, which has never been divided, which has a government, has treaties delineating its borders, has engaged in relations with other states and currently operates as a fully functioning legal entity on the international stage.  

What is the other one?  When did it come into being?  What evidence do you have of its existence?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Let's put it another way.  Syria has borders, right?  Jordan has borders.  Lebanon and Iraq have borders.
> ...




Thank you.  We can now put any question of borders to rest, since we both agree there are borders and we both agree where they are.  There is no need to discuss borders again.  

The question remaining then is whether or not there is an existing State within those borders.  

I got a government.  
Treaties with other countries.
Israel as a signatory to international agreements
UN recognition.
Recognized borders with Jordan and Egypt.


What you got?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

Look, you are trying to argue that there is a single legal entity within the borders of "Palestine" but because Jooooooos it must not be real.  Its the most bogus argument ever presented on this board since I've been here.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

Go back to Syria and Jordan and Lebanon and Iraq.  Why do they exist?  What MAKES them exist?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The land Israel sits on.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The land Israel sits on.



The fact that land exists does not in any way give legal sovereignty to anyone.  The criteria that YOU laid out were:  

a government
a territory
a permanent population
capacity to have relations with other states


We agree on the territory and the permanent population.  I have a government and capacity.  Why do you reject your own criteria?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The land Israel sits on.
> ...


Indeed, it is Palestinian territory. That is what the UN said in 1949. I have seen nothing since then that changes that.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it is Palestinian territory. That is what the UN said in 1949. I have seen nothing since then that changes that.



Neither have I.  It IS "Palestinian territory".  All of it.  That "Palestinian territory" is now the State of Israel.  

You are trying to argue that the State of Israel does not exist.  But it does.  According to the criteria that you supplied, and according to all known understanding of international law.  According to the parallel examples of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.  

There is no logical, legal reason WHY the "Palestinian territory" you speak of can not be = State of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, it is Palestinian territory. That is what the UN said in 1949. I have seen nothing since then that changes that.
> ...


Where is the treaty transferring that territory?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Where is the treaty transferring that territory?



What treaty transferred territory from the Ottoman Empire to Jordan?  Or Syria?  Or Lebanon?  Or Iraq?  Its the SAME.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the treaty transferring that territory?
> ...


No it isn't. The land was ceded to Palestine.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Okay.  The land of Jordan was ceded to Jordan.  The land of Syria was ceded to Syria.  That land of Lebanon was ceded to Lebanon.  The land of Iraq was ceded to Iraq.  The land of Palestine was ceded to Palestine.  

Its the same.  WHAT does that mean to say that a territory was ceded to a new legal entity?  

The land of Jordan was defined, in law.  It developed a government.  It developed the capacity to enter into relations with other states.  

So did Palestine.  It was the SAME.  Why do you reject one and not the others?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 2, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Ok, so, for my own peace of mind and clarity...

Can you please explain why you think that there are no borders?

I'm curious, because when I was in Jordan there was definitely a border crossing into Israel, a full, and legal border crossing. I know, I used it!

So, I am really interested to try and understand why you believe there are no borders...


----------



## Humanity (Sep 2, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



You have the patience of a saint! 

Is you head not hurting yet?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 2, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


There is no border around Gaza. Only the green line. You would think there is a border when you cross it because it is under military control. Israel controls the border between Jordan and the West Bank, (Palestinian occupied territory) but you would think you are entering Israel. Similarly, going from the West Bank into Israel there is a "border crossing" even though there is only the green line. The green line is not a political or territorial border between countries. It merely determined military movement within Palestine.

Israel likes to pretend it has borders.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 2, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Looks like you like to do a lot of pretending yourself TinFoilHat 

Israel has very definite borders. But they share a lot of land with the Arabs in Israel and now the Arabs pretend its there's ;-)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 2, 2017)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Links?


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 2, 2017)

Links ? Oh sure, no problem ;-)


----------



## Shusha (Sep 2, 2017)

Humanity said:


> You have the patience of a saint!
> 
> Is you head not hurting yet?



I enjoy the legal arguments, so when Tinmore is actually debating, I find it interesting.  Its when he runs out of useful arguments and just posts, "links?" that I want to bang my head against a brick.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 2, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Can you please explain why you think that there are no borders?
> 
> I'm curious, because when I was in Jordan there was definitely a border crossing into Israel, a full, and legal border crossing. I know, I used it!
> 
> So, I am really interested to try and understand why you believe there are no borders...



Tinmore's argument is interesting because he often mixes completely correct legal concepts with bizarre ones.  For example: 



P F Tinmore said:


> There is no border around Gaza. Only the green line. You would think there is a border when you cross it because it is under military control. Israel controls the border between Jordan and the West Bank, (Palestinian occupied territory) but you would think you are entering Israel. Similarly, going from the West Bank into Israel there is a "border crossing" even though there is only the green line. The green line is not a political or territorial border between countries....



This argument is entirely correct.  The Green Line (1949 Armistice Line) has absolutely no legal standing as a border.  It is NOT a border.  Never has been and is explicitly prohibited from being a border.  The only thing that can create a border is a treaty between nations delineating a border.  And that has not happened within Palestine.  Tinmore is perfectly correct when he says that "Palestine" is one sovereign territorial unit.  

But where he goes from there is where it gets weird (and wrong).  

He claims that the State of Palestine was created in 1922/23 by the Treaty of Lausanne.  And then confirmed in 1925 with the Citizenship Order.  He claims, therefore, that the State of Palestine ALREADY existed, prior to Israel coming into being. He claims, therefore, that Israel is an illegal entity built within the previously delineated borders of the existing State of Palestine.  And since Israel did not declare borders with her Independence -- she has none.  That's his argument.

Here is why he is wrong:

1.  The Treaty of Lausanne did not create States -- it only delineated territory under the British and the French Mandates and gave labels to geographical territories. 

2.  The criteria for a State are:  a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other States.  In 1923 "Palestine" did not meet the criteria of a state, therefore there was no state.   (That was the ENTIRE point of the Mandate -- to govern the territories in question until they had the ability to "stand alone".)

3.  All of the states which were previously under the Mandate came into being AS they met the criteria listed above.  Iraq in 1932, Lebanon in 1943, Syria and Jordan in 1946.  "Palestine" ALSO met that criteria in 1948 and declared independence. That created the State of Israel (in Palestine).  It was the same procedure for each.  Each gained independence over the entirety of the territory and each had border with other States.  

4. Even if you want to argue that all those States came into being in 1923, instead of 10-25 years later, but were still held "in trust" by the Mandate  -- this does not prohibit or prevent Israel from existing.  The concept would apply equally to all the States.  

5.  The PROOF that Israel became a State at that time is in the treaties and relations Israel had (has) with other States.  Peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt (delineating borders); admission and recognition in the UN, diplomatic relations with other States, etc, etc, etc.  There is no State of Palestine which demonstrates its capacity -- in 1922 or 1948 or well into the 1990s even -- to enter into relations with other States.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 2, 2017)

Shusha said:


> 1. The Treaty of Lausanne did not create States -- it only delineated territory under the British and the French Mandates and gave labels to geographical territories.


It is true that the Treaty of Lausanne did not create any states. The allied powers proposed to create successor states. They divided the territory, named each piece, and defined each new state with international borders. However, none of this could take place because all of these proposed new states still fell under Turkish sovereignty.

It was the Treaty of Lausanne that ceded the land to the respective new states. It also specified (Following international law.) that all former Turkish citizens would become citizens inside their new states.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 2, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> It was the Treaty of Lausanne that ceded the land to the respective new states. It also specified (Following international law.) that all former Turkish citizens would become citizens inside their new states.



And there you go!  You have provided your own answer to the question you continually ask, "Where did Palestine (Israel) get her territory?"  She got it in the exact same way everyone else did.  Ceded from Turkey through the Treaty of Lausanne.  Thanks.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 2, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > It was the Treaty of Lausanne that ceded the land to the respective new states. It also specified (Following international law.) that all former Turkish citizens would become citizens inside their new states.
> ...


OK, but Israel is a foreign entity in Palestine. How was that land transferred?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 2, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



By the Treaty of Lausanne. Exactly like you said. The exact same way as every other State in the area was created. 

Why wouldn't it have been?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 2, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > It was the Treaty of Lausanne that ceded the land to the respective new states. It also specified (Following international law.) that all former Turkish citizens would become citizens inside their new states.
> ...


OK, but Israel is a foreign entity in Palestine. How was that land transferred?


Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The native population was removed and a foreign government was imposed by military force.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 2, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Stop with your endless BS.

Israel is not a "foreign government" to the Land of Israel/Palestine.

The Native population has taken back sovereignty over their ancient homeland, even if 77% was disgracefully given by one foreign government (England) to another foreign people, the Hashemites of Arabia.

Military force is what 7 Arab foreign countries used to try to destroy Israel in various wars after its Independence.

Jews are the Natives.

Arabs, aka Palestinians or not, are the foreigners.

Get used to it or not, you do know that That is how it has always been.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 2, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...





Sixties Fan said:


> Israel is not a "foreign government" to the Land of Israel/Palestine.


Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of settlers.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 2, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



JEWS are the native indigenous people of the Land of Israel.  
It does not matter if they came from Zurich, Guatemala, Timbuktu, or Rome.

All Palestinians are Arabs and most had come to Palestine at the end of the 19th Century, early 20th Century from Arabia, Europe, North Africa and many other places.

Their indigenous land is called Arabia and to this day it sits in the same area it has always been.

You continue to give phony arguments to attempt to delegitimize the indigenous people of the land, the Jewish People/Nation.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 2, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Thanks for the Israeli talking points. I have heard them a gazillion times.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 2, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



And you will be reading and hearing the truth a gazillion times more, 
you can absorb it or not.

Israel is the sovereign country of the indigenous people of the Land of Israel/Judea (which the Romans changed the name to humiliate the Jews and NOBODY else)

The Jews can live with having 80% of their ancient homeland being taken by foreigners, those foreigners need to get used to living next to the sovereign country of the Jewish People.

Israel will never have a majority Arabs/Muslims.

Israel is Palestine.
Jordan is Palestine.
Gaza is Palestine.
Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria can be Palestine if the Arabs can only want peace with the Jews.

That is the reality many have come to understand.

It does not depend on you.
It never has depended on you.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 2, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The native population was removed and a foreign government was imposed by military force.



A foreign government?  Don't be absurd.  The only foreign governments which used military force in order to prevent the legal and practical formation of the State of Palestine (Israel) were the governments of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon.  Those governments were foreign to the territory, had NO sovereignty over Palestine and illegally used military force outside their own borders.  There were no other foreign governments or States involved.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 2, 2017)

You are STILL trying to find some argument for why the State of Israel CAN'T exist because ....... Jooooooooos.  It won't work.  There is absolutely no basis in international law for claiming that a specific ethnic group can't form a government and a State.  Neither will trying to disguise it as "foreigners" work.  There is absolutely no basis in international law for claiming that only "natives" can be part of State formation.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 2, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...





Sixties Fan said:


> And you will be reading and hearing the truth a gazillion times more,


Still doesn't make it true.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> You are STILL trying to find some argument for why the State of Israel CAN'T exist because ....... Jooooooooos.  It won't work.  There is absolutely no basis in international law for claiming that a specific ethnic group can't form a government and a State.  Neither will trying to disguise it as "foreigners" work.  There is absolutely no basis in international law for claiming that only "natives" can be part of State formation.


You need to read up on the basic rights of a people.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > You are STILL trying to find some argument for why the State of Israel CAN'T exist because ....... Jooooooooos.  It won't work.  There is absolutely no basis in international law for claiming that a specific ethnic group can't form a government and a State.  Neither will trying to disguise it as "foreigners" work.  There is absolutely no basis in international law for claiming that only "natives" can be part of State formation.
> ...



You need to read on the basic rights of ALL people.

Jews are people, too. 

Jews Exist.

Israel Exists.

Arabs/Muslims cannot change that.
Arabs /Muslims cannot continue to deny Jews their basic rights.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> You need to read up on the basic rights of a people.



You mean like the basic rights of a people to re-constitute their national homeland, as provided for by treaty (international law)? 

You need a better understanding of human rights law.  First of all, the rights of one people do not PROHIBIT the rights of another people from existing.  If one group of people have basic rights, then the other group of people ALSO have human rights.  Its a fairly simple concept.  You should be able to grasp it.  

Anyone who claims that the Jewish people have no "basic human rights" are antisemitic, plain and simple.  Anyone who believes that the Jewish people are not a people, not a cultural or ethnic group or nothing but Europeans fall into this category.  Is this where I should put you?  Or will you acknowledge that the Jewish people ALSO have basic right?

You have never outwardly said that the Jewish people don't have basic rights of a people (you tend to abandon the argument or create a diversion instead) but you argue as though you don't believe that they do or that they should somehow be treated differently.  I'm not sure yet if its because you are trying to hide what you know sounds (is) antisemitic or if your idea of basic rights is a bit fuzzy.  

So let's ask some objective questions about your general framework for "basic rights of a people".

1.  Is it a basic right for a people to form a sovereignty in their homeland?

2.  If a people are prevented from self-determination in their homeland, do they have a right to resist?

3.  If a people are removed from that homeland, do they have a right to return?

4.  If they have a right to return to they have a right to constitute or re-constitute their national home?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> You need to read up on the basic rights of a people.



You need to be careful what you are claiming here.  It sounds to me like you are claiming that possession of a territory grants superior or exclusive rights, regardless of how that possession was obtained.  This argument is problematic on a number of levels, if you look at the laws surrounding international sovereignty, not the least of which is that Israel is currently in possession of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You need to read up on the basic rights of a people.
> ...


You have a basic misunderstanding of international law. One of the basics is that the people are "married" to the land.

We see this in the rule of nationality and state succession. When there is a change in governance, the people become citizens of the new state. They cannot be separated from their land.

The people have the right of territorial integrity. Land cannot be acquired through the threat or use of force. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. In other words, it is illegal to steal land.

The people are the sovereigns in a territory. People from another territory have no sovereignty there. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty in a territory. Whenever rights are mentioned, it is always the right of the people. It is never mentioned that states or governments have rights.

Governments derive their legitimacy by the consent of the governed. Governments established through coups or other military force are illegitimate.

Israel violates most or all of these legal principles.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I always get a chuckle when Tinmore offers his legal opinions by way of weed whacking through the landscape of wiki.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> You have a basic misunderstanding of international law. One of the basics is that the people are "married" to the land.
> 
> We see this in the rule of nationality and state succession. When there is a change in governance, the people become citizens of the new state. They cannot be separated from their land.
> 
> ...



Again, you are demonstrating your confusing and inaccurate mix of legitimate legal concepts and made-up bullshit to support your points.  

The concepts that you put forth in your post are:

People are "married" to the land.

The rules of nationality and state succession -- that people become citizens of a new sovereign.

The people have a right to territorial integrity.

Land can not be acquired through force.

A State can not annex another State's territory through occupation.  

The people are sovereigns of a territory.

People from another territory can have no sovereignty there.  

Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.  

Rights belong solely to people and never to governments or States. 

Governments derive their legitimacy from those governed.  

Governments who establish their rights through force are illegitimate.  



Let's go through them, one by one, shall we?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Of course you refuted nothing.

As usual.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#1

People are married to the land.  

Yes, yes they are.  And those rights extend beyond the people who are presently the occupiers of the land.  Agree or disagree?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You have a basic misunderstanding of international law. One of the basics is that the people are "married" to the land.
> ...


Sure, help yourself.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#2

The rules of nationality and state succession state that people become citizens of the new sovereign.  

Yes. Yes, they do. But pay attention to what that means.  The new sovereign imports that new sovereignty to all the people within the territory of sovereignty.  Sovereignty, therefore, creates a new reality for the people of the area.  They cease to be citizens of the old sovereign and become citizens of the new.  The people have no say in the matter.  The sovereign changes hands and they are at the mercy of it.  The "peoplehood" of the people have no legal effect on the change of sovereignty.  

Which means, of course, that the change of sovereignty from Ottoman to Israel is not dependent on the people.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#3

The people have a right to territorial integrity.  

States have a right to territorial integrity.  People do not.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> #1
> 
> People are married to the land.
> 
> Yes, yes they are.  And those rights extend beyond the people who are presently the occupiers of the land.  Agree or disagree?


Habitual inhabitants or permanent population.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#4

Land can not be acquired by force.  

A useful argument against both Jordanian and Egyptian annexation of Palestine.  Also a useful argument against Palestinian "resistance".  A rather silly argument against the facts of the treaties involved in the creation of the State of Israel, since any military force was in support of the treaties and international law, rather than against it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Sovereignty, therefore, creates a new reality for the people of the area. They cease to be citizens of the old sovereign and become citizens of the new.


Indeed, that means that all Palestinian refugees are Israeli citizens.

It was not from the Ottomans to Israel. The territory was ceded to Palestine.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#5

A State cannot annex another State's territory through occupation.  


True.  But there were not two States existant at the time, so immaterial to the conflict.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#6

The people's are sovereigns of a territory.  

Plain ass bullshit.  International recognition of sovereignty has absolutely nothing to do with the wishes of the people -- even in democracies, let alone other forms of government.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> #3
> 
> The people have a right to territorial integrity.
> 
> States have a right to territorial integrity.  People do not.


That is not what it says.

Look it up.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#7

People from another territory have no sovereignty here.

Argument for possession.  If a people are removed, they lose their sovereignty.  Are you SURE you want to go there?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> #5
> 
> A State cannot annex another State's territory through occupation.
> 
> ...


That is not what it says.

Look it up.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#8

Occupiers do not acquire sovereignty.

Demonstrably untrue in reality.  But since there is no occupation, it is irrelevant to this conversation.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

#9

Rights belong solely to people and never to States or governments.  

Bullshit.  International law quite clearly gives rights to States much more reliably than to "people".  Read a treaty.  FFS.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

Dude.  Your whole "look it up tactic" makes you look foolish.  It you want to bring an argument or a document to the table -- do it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> #6
> 
> The people's are sovereigns of a territory.
> 
> Plain ass bullshit.  International recognition of sovereignty has absolutely nothing to do with the wishes of the people -- even in democracies, let alone other forms of government.


Political recognition and legal status are two different things.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > #5
> ...




That is not what "it" says?  What "it"?  

The only way a State could have annexed another State's territory through occupation is for there to have been TWO States.  If you have proof that two States existed, meeting all the criteria you provided, at the time (either 1923 or 1948)  -- BRING IT!


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > #3
> ...



That is not what "it" says?  What "it"?  

States absolutely have a right to territorial integrity.  "People" do not.  If you have some sort of legal document which says that "people" have a right to territorial integrity you had better cough that up.  But, warning, if you do -- the Jewish people, as the indigenous peoples will, show you where the heck their territorial integrity lies and you can be damn sure that it will include all of what they historically had sovereignty over.  

And while we are discussing that -- could you provide some legal proof that Egypt STILL owns all the territory she had integrity to over her vast Empires in the past?  Or Rome?  Or perhaps Greece?  Maybe Japan as well?  Or any of the South American Empires, like the Incas, Mayans or Aztecs?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> #9
> 
> Rights belong solely to people and never to States or governments.
> 
> Bullshit.  International law quite clearly gives rights to States much more reliably than to "people".  Read a treaty.  FFS.


The people have the right to establish governments and create states. Governments and states are extensions of the people's sovereignty.

"We The People" mean what?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Sovereignty, therefore, creates a new reality for the people of the area. They cease to be citizens of the old sovereign and become citizens of the new.
> ...



What is the difference between ceding the territory to "Israel" and ceding the territory to "Palestine".  If you were going to explain it to aliens, how would you do so?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, that means that all Palestinian refugees are Israeli citizens.



BAM!  Finally you have hit on THE relevant point!  

Israel exists.  Israel is legitimate.  Duh.  BUT Israel SHOULD have granted citizenship to all residents of Palestine.  I would be most happy to discuss this further.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > #9
> ...



Well, no.  Not really.  Its a poor and limited understanding of international law.  BUT, I'm going to go with it for the purpose of this thread. 

Lets assume you are correct.  The PEOPLE have the rights to establish governments and create States.  *So when people DO THAT VERY THING it is a valid government and a valid State.  Thus ends the argument on this thread. * 

See, you are trying to argue at the same time that SOME people have the right to establish governments and create States but that Jewish people do not have that right. 

And BAM, you just trumped your own argument.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> If you have some sort of legal document which says that "people" have a right to territorial integrity you had better cough that up.


7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, *and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.*

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > If you have some sort of legal document which says that "people" have a right to territorial integrity you had better cough that up.
> ...



Your reading comprehension needs work. ..."*non-interference in the internal affairs of all States..*."  

"Peoples" don't have legal boundaries, and therefore can not have territorial integrity.  States have legal boundaries.  

And let's take a look at Articles 1 and 2 of that same document:

_1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

_


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, that means that all Palestinian refugees are Israeli citizens.
> ...


That is assuming that Israel is the successor state to Palestine that nobody has proven to be true.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Israel is NOT the successor State to Palestine.  Israel IS Palestine.  Israel is the successor State to the Ottoman Empire.  There was NEVER any other State created.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> "Peoples" don't have legal boundaries, and therefore can not have territorial integrity. States have legal boundaries.


People within a defined territory have the right to establish a government and create a state. Governments and states are the peoples right. This is the exercise of their right to self determination. Governments and states are extensions of the people's sovereignty.

Nothing in your post conflicts with the meaning of my post.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Do you have any proof of that?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. Israel was created by foreigners in direct opposition to the will of the native population.


----------



## Lastamender (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> I was loathe to begin a new thread on this topic when it came up on another one, because, quite frankly, the claim is so ridiculous it does not deserve discussion, let alone its own thread.  However, since it is likely to drive the other thread off-topic...
> 
> The claim made on the other thread was that *Israel does not exist*.  The context of this assertion is the vile notion that it is not possible to commit a crime against Israel or Israelis (read: Jews), including war crimes and humanitarian crimes -- thus absolving Arabs of all wrong-doing when Israel (read: Jews) is the target.
> 
> ...


*Israel is free to carry out whatever deeds it likes upon the Arab "Palestinian" people.*
That is the way the cookie crumbles. The Palestinians are just Muslims trying to kill Jews anyway they can.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




Tons of it.  Already posted.  Meets all the criteria you provided.  

#1.  Transition from one sovereignty to the next follows previous legal boundaries.  Check.

#2.  No legal boundaries inside Palestine have ever been added.  Check.  

#3.  Has a government.  Check.

#4.  Has demonstrated capacity to enter into relations with other States.  Any treaty ever signed by Israel.  UN recognition. Diplomatic relations.   Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Check.

#5.  Legal boundaries by treaty (international law) between Israel and Jordan.  Legal boundaries by treaty (international law) by Israel and Egypt.  Check.  


Yep.  Israel meets all the requirements. You can keep pretending that all this evidence doesn't exist.  But the longer you do, the more ridiculous you sound.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> A rather silly argument against the facts of the treaties involved in the creation of the State of Israel,


Which were?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> #5. Legal boundaries by treaty (international law) between Israel and Jordan. Legal boundaries by treaty (international law) by Israel and Egypt. Check.


It is interesting that Israel claims boundaries on land that the UN says is Palestine. And Israel signed those documents.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > #5. Legal boundaries by treaty (international law) between Israel and Jordan. Legal boundaries by treaty (international law) by Israel and Egypt. Check.
> ...




Its actually rather FAR more interesting that the UN has taken the foundation of international law (that being treaties between Nation States) and disregards it with respect to Israel and only disregards it with respect to Israel.

Are we now going to dismantle treaty law and claim that treaties between nations are not valid?!


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

The UN does not (and has never had) the capacity to create nations or determine status of territories.

Are we now going to dismantle this fundamental foundation of international law with respect to Israel and only with respect to Israel?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

And, btw, I AM noticing your refusal to answer my questions about objective basic human rights.  I knew you would ignore that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Are we now going to dismantle treaty law and claim that treaties between nations are not valid?!


That is true. No treaty that violates the rights of people is valid.

What if Germany and Spain sign a treaty stating they have a mutual border in the middle of France?

Valid treaty?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Are we now going to dismantle treaty law and claim that treaties between nations are not valid?!
> ...



Now you are just being silly.  Do better.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I don't see Germany or Spain attempting such a thing, but Israel would.

Seriously, both the Egyptian, Israeli  and the Jordanian, Israeli armistice agreements call that territory (the Negev) Palestine. Israel signed both agreements.

What happened since 1949 that made that territory Israel?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Show us where the treaties refer to the Negev as Palestine.  Would it be the Mandate for Palestine?

Remember:  Israel is Palestine/Palestine is Israel

*Israeli rule *
In 1948 the Negev came under Israeli rule. In the early years of the state, it absorbed many of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries, with the Israeli government setting up many development towns, such as Arad, Sderot and Netivot. Since then, the Negev has also become home to many of the Israel Defense Forcesmajor bases - a process accelerating in the past two decades.
Negev - Wikipedia
-------
In 1947 and 1948, when the boundaries of the Jewish and Arab states were being debated by diplomats, David Ben-Gurion insisted the Negev be part of the Jewish state. Though it was virtually uninhabited and thought by many to be uncultivable, Ben-Gurion knew this region was needed if the state was to grow. He also had faith the desert could be tamed and turned into a place where Jews could settle and prosper. More than 50 years later, his vision has been realized.
The Negev Desert
-------------


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Seriously. Give it up. What made it not Israel?!  

The reality is that the only legal entities which existed at the time are Israel Jordan and Egypt. You keep trying to pretend that there was another legal entity there. But there was not. 

Who signed the agreements?!  Israel. Jordan. Egypt. 

Why did those three entities enter into agreements with each other?!  Because they were the only three legal entities which existed!  This is not rocket science. 

There WAS no invisible ghost fourth entity. And even if there were it would STILL not prohibit Israel from existing.


----------



## Slyhunter (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The Israelites are the natives!


----------



## Linkiloo (Sep 4, 2017)

Tinmore acts like calling a territory Palestine means it must have belonged to the Arab palestinians back then.  He probably fancies that map which shows how Israel "stole" Palestine by existing in that geographical territory (not country Tinmore!)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I ask a question. You blow smoke.

Remember, the UN cannot create states. It cannot transfer any land or create borders. The armistice agreements merely restricted the movement of military forces. Palestine had no military. There were no forces to limit.

The armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. There is not one word of difference between Jordan's occupation, Egypt's occupation, and Israel's occupation.

Palestine was mentioned several times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. They said that the armistice agreements were to foster peace in Palestine. They did not say peace in Israel or peace in Israel/Palestine.

Palestinian land was mentioned. There was no land mentioned for Israel.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel.

So, back to my question that you ducked.

What happened since 1949 that made that territory Israel?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



In what context was Palestine "mentioned"? You have used this pointless meme before where a mere "mention" of Palestine magically transforms the geographic area into your invented "country of Pally'land"


----------



## Humanity (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You know... This is where it all gets SERIOUSLY boring....

All this wasted bandwidth to try and argue that Israel does not exist...

Go tell it to the Israelis, to the Palestinians, to everyone else that actually lives in the country called Israel...

I just cannot see why you cannot just accept that Israel really does exist!!! It's futile and childish to argue against that one simple fact... Dragging up and arguing the historical/political facts is ridiculous!

And, if I may say, actually detracts/deflects from the real issues within Israel/Palestine!

From what I have seen on this thread you are the ONLY person arguing that Israel doesn't exist! there aren't even any pro Palestinains, including me, who are supporting your argument! Surely that must tell you something!?!?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...





Humanity said:


> From what I have seen on this thread you are the ONLY person arguing that Israel doesn't exist!


It is not uncommon. In Palestine, and among Palestinian supporters, Israel is commonly called 48. (As in 1948 occupied Palestine.) Palestinian maps, and those of some of the surrounding countries, show Palestine without Israel. One of the biggest gripes the "west" has with Hamas is that Hamas recognizes Israel as an occupation. When Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in 2006 they stated that they crossed into Israeli occupied Palestine and captured two soldiers.

I have been studying this history for 15 years and have found nothing to prove this to be incorrect. When I ask people to prove otherwise all I get is a song and dance.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You study what you want to study.
You believe what you wish to believe.
And that is the top and bottom of your wasted 15 years of "studying history" .

There is History, and then there is the "history" you look at which is exactly what you want to read, and nothing else.

Look for a three eyed monster in people's writings and one will find a three eyed monster.
Do they actually exist? 
What does it actually mean? 
That is the question.

(And you cannot figure out why some Arab countries, or territories have maps of Palestine without Israel, can you?


----------



## rylah (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Didn't You just answer Your own question?
Even the neighboring states recognized what Shusha is explaining.
Israel govt. was the only state recognized as existent in Palestine. All Palestinian Arabs had to do was fulfill all Your categories of a state, like Israelis did. But they wanted Syria, or even a bigger unified Arab state.

Sounds familiar today?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Thank you. You proved my point.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Political recognition was not my point.

Try again.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




You have no points, and your answer is total BS created by a lifetime of ignorance.

Do not try again.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Nice dodge.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You do not ask questions.  
You want people to agree with you no matter what you post, no matter where you got that information, no matter what it means.

So, what was your point?
And keep it simple for us, because I for one cannot understand what it is that you are trying to say beyond trying to force a narrative which has nothing to do with History or the facts on the ground.

So, what was your point by saying that neighboring Arab countries, etc do not have Israel in a map of Palestine, etc, etc etc.. ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...





Sixties Fan said:


> And keep it simple for us, because I for one cannot understand what it is that you are trying to say...


Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



No, Tinman, I am not confused at all, actually.
It is very clear that you are a very ignorant Christian who follows the age old hatred for Jews as started by Christianity. 

You follow whatever the hatred for Jews not only Christianity, but Islam
as well hold for Jews  and all learned out of ignorance.

ISRAEL DOES NOT EXIST to you ONLY because the Arab Muslim haters of Jews say so.  That is finally clear.

Please, continue with your hatred of Jews and your denial of Israel's existence.  I want you to.
Why?  Because when people do not want Israel or Jews to exist, that is when both do better and continue to succeed and survive the endless ignorance people like you are totally incapable of understanding and do away with.

You are a Jew hater Junkie.  And there is no cure for it, unless you cure it yourself.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Name calling is a sign of losing.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Pointing out your endless ignorance would be "name calling" for the most knowledgable person in these forums.

You hide your ignorance.  We always find it.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> I ask a question. You blow smoke.


You ask a question based on a false premise.  Your premise is that the Treaty of Lausanne transferred territory to "Palestine".  It did not.  The Treaty of Lausanne ceded territory from Turkey to the succeeding governments of each newly created territory, after a period of time where it was held in trust by the British and French.  The Government of Syria governed Syria and became the State of Syria.  The Government of Jordan governed Jordan and became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.  The Government of Palestine governed Palestine and became the State of Israel.  There are no other legal Governments or States.  There are no other legal entities in play here.



> Palestine had no military. There were no forces to limit.


  Of course Palestine had a military.  Under the Government of Palestine (Israel) -- the Israeli Defense Forces, set up in May of 1948 under the order of David Ben-Gurion.  What you MEAN to say here is that Arab Palestinians had no organized military.  Duh.  That is because they had no Government and no State.



> The armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. There is not one word of difference between Jordan's occupation, Egypt's occupation, and Israel's occupation.


Not so.  You are trying to incorporate the word "occupation" in there in order to introduce an incorrect idea -- the idea that all three States were "occupying" a fourth State and additionally that since the Egyptian and Jordanian "occupations" were illegal -- the Israeli one must be too.  This is a wildly deliberate misunderstanding of legal fact in order to push forward a false narrative and political agenda.

Egypt and Jordan, clearly, without doubt used military force in territory that was legally established as NOT THEIRS.  Israel, on the contrary, used military force in territory over which it had complete sovereignty.  (In exactly the same way that Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and Iraq each had sovereignty over theirs.)

This is what the Jordanian-Israeli Armistice Agreement actually says:

_Article IV 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.
_
Note the term "respective Parties".  Who are the respective Parties?  The legal Parties to the agreement?  The ONLY legal parties EVER mentioned in ANY of the documents of the time?  Jordan (the recognized Government in Jordan) and Israel (the recognized Government in Palestine).  And by recognition, I mean de facto and de jure recognition of Israel by other nations and the UN.  No other party existed.



> Palestine was mentioned several times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. They said that the armistice agreements were to foster peace in Palestine. They did not say peace in Israel or peace in Israel/Palestine. Palestinian land was mentioned. There was no land mentioned for Israel.  Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel.


Of course.  That was the geographical terminology in use at the time.  Nothing more.  The fact that a geographical name was used and the fact that the geographical name was eventually changed does not CREATE a State. Go back and read what you posted about the UN not creating States -- the use of a name in a document does not create a State.  What creates a State is the fulfillment of the four criteria.  Which Israel has at the time in question and this mythical Arab Palestine you keep trying to push has not.



> So, back to my question that you ducked.What happened since 1949 that made that territory Israel?


  What happened is that Palestine (Israel) developed a government and was recognized by the international community, fulfilling the last two of the four criteria.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I ask a question. You blow smoke.
> ...





Shusha said:


> Israel, on the contrary, used military force in territory over which it had complete sovereignty.


Can you prove that?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> I have been studying this history for 15 years and have found nothing to prove this to be incorrect. When I ask people to prove otherwise all I get is a song and dance.



Better song and dance than "Link?"

Surprisingly I have NEVER seen Israel called "48" on this forum...

Unsurprisingly I HAVE seen maps of Palestine without Israel... Can't think why!

Hamas are a terrorist organisation... That is why the "west" does not like Hamas... Your suggestion that it is because Hamas is not liked because it considers "Israel as an occupation" is ridiculous and shows a lack of knowledge and understanding to the situation!

If this is what you believe after your 15 years of "studying" you have seriously wasted 15 years of your life! Maybe spend the rest of your life "studying" needlepoint... Maybe that will suit your mentality better?

As a terrorist organisation Hamas has NO right to 'recognise' anything!!


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




Of course I can. I HAVE been proving it.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

You have nothing. You try to prove Israel doesn't exist by quoting documents which clearly prove not only its existence but it's equivalence with Jordan. And yet you want different legal rules to apply.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I ask a question. You blow smoke.
> ...





Shusha said:


> Israel, on the contrary, used military force in territory over which it had complete sovereignty.


Can you prove that?


Humanity said:


> Hamas are a terrorist organisation...


Can you think of one Palestinian political party that does not get the terrorist name calling thing. Everybody gets slimed by Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> You have nothing. You try to prove Israel doesn't exist by quoting documents which clearly prove not only its existence but it's equivalence with Jordan. And yet you want different legal rules to apply.


Israel is not the same as Jordan. Jordan didn't kick people out of their homes and steal their land.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Surprisingly I have NEVER seen Israel called "48" on this forum...


Well, not on this forum, but I have heard it elsewhere.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > You have nothing. You try to prove Israel doesn't exist by quoting documents which clearly prove not only its existence but it's equivalence with Jordan. And yet you want different legal rules to apply.
> ...



That is so funny.

Lets see:

1925  = All the Jewish people living in their ancient homeland of TransJordan were attacked  and expelled from 77 % of what had been part of the Mandate for Palestine.
After that, the Hashemite Kingdom decided that Jews could never be allowed to reside in TransJordan.

1948 = All the Jews were attacked and expelled from Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with the help of the British.

No, the Sauds did not kick out the Hashemites from their homes and steal their land around WWI. They turned it into Saudi Arabia.

And the Hashemites did not kick out the Jews from their homes and steal their land in 1925 and 1948.  They turned the first into Jordan and tried to annex the second one but failed.


Nooooooooooooooooooo.....Jordan did not kick out and steal "anyone's land".
You know why?

Because Jews do not count as people.

Isn't that right?

Non people have no homes, land, or anything else.

Isn't that right, tin man?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> and Israel (the recognized Government in Palestine).


Political recognition was not the question.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is not the same as Jordan. Jordan didn't kick people out of their homes and steal their land.



See?  You want to make different legal rules for sovereignty of Palestine vs. sovereignty of Jordan.  It absolutely will not fly.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Political recognition was not the question.



Sure it is.  Its one of the criteria.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Your suggestion that it is because Hamas is not liked because it considers "Israel as an occupation"


Then perhaps you can explain when Israel legally acquired its land.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is not the same as Jordan. Jordan didn't kick people out of their homes and steal their land.



In point of LAW -- they most certainly did, as Sixties pointed out above.  In fact, I have a MUCH better legal argument that Arabs stole land intended for the Jewish national homeland and under the sovereignty of the only government IN Palestine which was the Government of Israel, than anything you have come up with.  Another thread though.  

You are still trying to convince anyone that Israel doesn't exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Israel is not the same as Jordan. Jordan didn't kick people out of their homes and steal their land.
> ...


I didn't make the difference. It was Israel that made the difference.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Israel is not the same as Jordan. Jordan didn't kick people out of their homes and steal their land.
> ...


You are still dancing around the question about when Israel legally acquired any land


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Oh, I get that you want legal rules not to apply to Israel.  You have not yet provided a single reason WHY legal rules should not apply to Israel.  Exactly as they should apply to Jordan.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> You are still dancing around the question about when Israel legally acquired any land



I am not.  You just don't like the answer.  Palestine (Israel) acquired land in EXACTLY the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon did -- through the ceding of land from Turkey in the Treaty of Lausanne.  Through the development of a Government.  And through recognition with other States.  Israel is Palestine.  Palestine is Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You are still dancing around the question about when Israel legally acquired any land
> ...



You know.  I think it all depends on what Tin man means by the word "Acquired".

Tell us tin man, what is the definition of Acquired which you are using for Israel, which would be equal to all the other Mandates, for Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> You know.  I think it all depends on what Tin man means by the word "Acquired".



Well, what he is trying to prove is that "Palestine" acquired land in the same way that Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq did.  And then Israel stole it from "Palestine" using military force.

What he is having difficulty grasping is that there is no way to differentiate between "Palestine" and "Israel".  Just as there is no way to differentiate between "Jordan" and the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".  They are the same legal entity -- a geographical label of a defined territory, which transitioned by achieving the four criteria necessary, to being States.

He is foolishly trying to prove that "Palestine" was indeed a State, even though it did not meet the criteria, while simutaneously trying to prove the "Israel" was not a State, even though it did meet the criteria.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > You know.  I think it all depends on what Tin man means by the word "Acquired".
> ...



The main issue with me is that Jordan did not acquire the land the same way as Israel, known as Palestine, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.

There were four Mandates to begin with.  The four above.
But the British, not being Jew friendly, decided to give most of the Jewish Mandate to another Arab clan. And then, the British basically gave up on giving any of the rest to the Jews, and let the Arabs riot and kill.

So, Jordan only happened because the Hashemites were kicked out of their ancient homeland by the Yemenite Saudi clan, and the British Chose to give most of the Mandate of Palestine to them.

Nothing like this happened with the other mandates.

Not one indigenous people, be it the Kurds, etc were allowed any part of their homeland.  They were all forced to share with the Arab invaders.  And so it was until it was not.

The Jews wanted to share what was left of the Mandate with the Arabs.  The Arabs said no.

How did Israel acquire land?

Though blood, sweat and tears.  All of that forced on them by the Arabs/Muslims who could not accept Jewish sovereignty even on the Jewish Ancient Homeland.

They were attacked from 1920 to 1949.  Survived because there was nothing else to do but survived in the middle of such hostility.

Tin man cannot accept that the Jews survived and continue to survive.

Too bad for him


----------



## Humanity (Sep 5, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Can you think of one Palestinian political party that does not get the terrorist name calling thing. Everybody gets slimed by Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.



If the cap fits!!

Are you telling me that Hamas is NOT a terrorist organisation?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 5, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Surprisingly I have NEVER seen Israel called "48" on this forum...
> ...



But didn't you say it was commonplace?

I have never seen it here nor anywhere else for that matter?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 5, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Your suggestion that it is because Hamas is not liked because it considers "Israel as an occupation"
> ...



Strange question that really...

As I find the 'historical' rhetoric incredibly boring and futile I will refrain from making any comment on that...

Suffice to say, Israel DOES exist, that, for me, is enough!

The evidence is there to be found, in black and white, I really don't feel I need to copy and paste and fill this board with what can be easily found online!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 5, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Indeed, then why don't you post it?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 5, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Can you think of one Palestinian political party that does not get the terrorist name calling thing. Everybody gets slimed by Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.
> ...


Relatively speaking. Compared to Israel they are mere pikers. It is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I already did... You didn't like it so decided it doesn't count!

Only doing it once...

Aside from your wild claims in relation to treaties and your rather ignorant interpretations of the law... Do you actually have anything from the real world that shows that Israel doesn't exist?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Relatively speaking?

What exactly does that mean?

Are you saying that Hamas are NOT a terrorist organisation?

Oh, and, if you would be so kind, can you just answer that question? Comparisons I am not interested in at the moment!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


The name callers always attack Hamas when Israel is 100 times worse? Never a peep about that.

My biggest beef it the gross double standard?

BTW, is attacking criminals terrorism? Both Israel and Hamas do the same thing. Israel fires in the direction of the rockets and Hamas fires in the direction of the tanks and airplanes. The only difference is that Israel mooches better weapons.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The name callers always attack Hamas when Israel is 100 times worse? Never a peep about that.
> 
> My biggest beef it the gross double standard?
> 
> BTW, is attacking criminals terrorism? Both Israel and Hamas do the same thing. Israel fires in the direction of the rockets and Hamas fires in the direction of the tanks and airplanes. The only difference is that Israel mooches better weapons.



In other words, he is saying that Hamas is NOT a terrorist organization.  Why?  Because all Israelis (read: Jews) are legitimate targets because they are criminals.  So.  Shrug.  Hamas' attacks are all perfectly legal and moral.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I knew you could't actually answer the question so I prepared this earlier...

Hamas - Terrorist Organisation

YES?

or 

NO?

Choose one!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Why should I single out Hamas when there are much worse terrorists out there?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Single out?

That was not the question.

Is Hamas a terrorist group or not?  That is the question.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



So basically you don't believe Hamas a terrorist organisation...

Pretty much sums up your thought processes!

I don't think I will bother responding to your future posts... And I cannot understand why ANYONE would bother!


----------



## Humanity (Sep 6, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Yep, that was the question that Tinny cannot/will not answer because the answer has to be YES... He is then a supporter of terrorism and a waste of space on this board!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

So, where does this terrorist label come from? Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign against the Palestinians.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention.  It is not a country and they could not care less to follow it.


When a group like Hamas, and all other groups in Gaza choose to "Terrorize" others, be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc with the intention of destroying a country......

It is called  TERRORISM.  Their parent, the Muslim Brotherhood is also considered to be a terrorist group.  Just ask other Arab countries.

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...





Sixties Fan said:


> Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention.


Links?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Well, shall we just say that it's easier to list those that do NOT consider Hamas a terrorist group....

Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Brazil, Turkey, China, Qatar and P F Tinmore.

That was easy wasn't it!


----------



## Humanity (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You don't get this* 'cannot prove a negative'* thing do you!!!

You got links to show that Hamas HAS followed the Geneva Convention?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Only a handful of all the countries in the world do the terrorist name calling against Hamas. Most don't.

The EU did but their court ruled that the criteria used for that designation was bogus.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Then why did he make a statement if he cannot back it up?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Go and read the Geneva convention.
It states that a military or militia cannot hide amongst civilians while attacking a country, etc.

What did Hamas do, in the really NOT densely populated areas of Gaza?

Did it go away from all civilians in order to fire its rockets against Israel?  NO

Did it stock its ammunition away from civilian buildings and civilian areas?  NO

Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 6, 2017)

Is Gaza a country?
Is it a signatory of the Geneva Convention?
Does it act by any recognized laws of war?

Does Geneva Convention apply to countries which aren't signatories?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)



And that is a poor excuse for an understanding of international humanitarian law.  The assumption you make is that since "nationals of an occupying power" are not "protected persons" under GCIV, it is permissible, legally, to treat such civilians as combatants. This is a gross misunderstanding of IHL.  (Though it is much less likely to be a misunderstanding as it is to be a deliberately-contrived excuse for permitting the murder of Israeli civilians and justifying terrorism). 

It also depends on an interpretation of law which extends Israel's "occupation" to the entire territory -- which is a blatant disregard of legal precepts. 

As an example:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

_(1) *Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.*

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) *violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;*
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples._

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of war, Article 3.1


The idea that it is permissible to kill civilians, or attack indiscriminately in areas of civilian presence is legally ridiculous and morally reprehensible.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...





Sixties Fan said:


> Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:


*From December 24, 2008​*- The rocket attacks from Hamas increase and so do the retaliation air strikes from Israel.​
Why don't they mention that the rockets are in retaliation for the siege which is an act of war. Not to mention that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire.

Some "experts."


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Is Gaza a country?
> Is it a signatory of the Geneva Convention?
> Does it act by any recognized laws of war?
> 
> Does Geneva Convention apply to countries which aren't signatories?


Thank you. Clear as mud.

Then there is:

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Because there is no "siege".
There is an embargo, a legal one, caused by Hamas taking over Gaza and mostly for the 14,000 rockets they and all other groups in Gaza have been firing on Israel, destroying property, harming and even killing civilians.

Israel left Gaza.  All of it.  There was a civil war between Hamas and Fatah.  Hamas won.  Hamas chose to fire rockets instead of building a State.  One like Israel, not one like all the other Arab states, which would have happened if Hamas had not wasted all of it in tunnels, mansions, expensive cars, and most of that money ending up in Hamas leaders' pocket.

The rockets are a clear intention of Hamas charter where it states that it wants to destroy Israel.

Which ceasefire you think Israel broke can only come from an Anti Israel source, which is all you read.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)
> ...


We cannot even define the conflict so we cannot determine what is legal or illegal.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...





Sixties Fan said:


> Israel left Gaza.


See, your whole shtick is based on false premise.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The conflict is easy to define...
The Arab world has forced Israel to become one of the best and most powerful militarys on earth.
Feel stupid yet.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 6, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> We cannot even define the conflict so we cannot determine what is legal or illegal.



Why can't we define the conflict? 

And why can't we determine what is legal or illegal?


----------



## VictoriasExoticGirl (Sep 6, 2017)

My country recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, and I stand with my country!


----------



## Slyhunter (Sep 6, 2017)

VictoriasExoticGirl said:


> My country recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, and I stand with my country!


You go to Gaza dressed like your Avatar and see what happens.


----------



## VictoriasExoticGirl (Sep 6, 2017)

Slyhunter I'm sure Gazans are very nice, friendly, welcoming people.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > We cannot even define the conflict so we cannot determine what is legal or illegal.
> ...


Well there are many different scenarios, but let's just look at some basics for now.

Some say that all of Palestine is occupied. Some say that only the West Bank, E. Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied while others say no to Gaza. Others say that there is no occupation.

How can we work out a solution when we can't even agree on the problem.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 7, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Well, on one point we can agree.  And we should, because it is legally correct.  As we both know, there has NEVER been any legal division of the territory in question.  Therefore, there are only two legal possibilities.  

1.  All of the territory is under the sovereignty of the State of Israel.  

2.  All of the territory is under some other legal entity. 

(Since there IS no other legal entity within those borders, its obviously door #1.)  


However.  And this is a really BIG HOWEVER!  The past is immaterial to solving the problem.  Why?  Because legal changes become legal through words on paper in a peace treaty.  Thus anything can happen.  The past, the present matters not one tiny little bit.  Literally, anything can happen if the Parties simply agree to it.  

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN.  Whatever is written becomes the legal reality.

So what is the basic nature of the conflict?  Its actually pretty easy to define.  There are two distinct (from each other) cultures claiming self-determination, sovereignty and rights to the same pieces of land.  

Do you agree or disagree with that as a basic conceptualization of the conflict?


----------



## thetor (Sep 7, 2017)

Moron,


Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


the Romans and others since have acknowledged the Palestinians and a Palestine,moreover even the Zionists acknowledged the Palestinians and Palestine....You Boston are a TOTAL IDIOT


----------



## Linkiloo (Sep 7, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You are out of date. The EU won the appeal and the court said that the EU can continue to  designate Hamas terrorist. EU court upholds Hamas terror listing

Since I live in the EU, I couldn't care less that other renegade countries don't call a spade a spade. I'm pleased that the EU does.


----------



## Linkiloo (Sep 7, 2017)

thetor said:


> Moron,
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> ...


The Romans...where do they live?


----------



## Linkiloo (Sep 7, 2017)

Slyhunter said:


> VictoriasExoticGirl said:
> 
> 
> > My country recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, and I stand with my country!
> ...


I think she should go to gaza and shout her signature out loudly a few times.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 7, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Only a handful of all the countries in the world do the terrorist name calling against Hamas. Most don't.



Links?


----------



## thetor (Sep 9, 2017)

Linkiloo said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Moron,
> ...


Moron


----------



## thetor (Sep 9, 2017)

B


Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Only a handful of all the countries in the world do the terrorist name calling against Hamas. Most don't.
> ...


But everyone knows of Zionist Terrorists....Israel is Terrorism and Originated because of it....


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 9, 2017)

thetor said:


> B
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> ...


Indeed, virtually every clash is Israel's military attacking civilians.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 9, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > B
> ...



Links? (Don't worry, I do not expect you to come up with any   )

Or do you mean those Hamas and other Arab terrorist groups in Gaza who insist in firing rockets, or bullets, etc at Israel while wearing civilian clothes.  If one checks the videos of each war, the Arabs are not too kin on wearing uniforms during combat.
But during Parades, Summer camps, Funerals, etc, what wonderful uniforms they have.
Or those rockets from Gaza which virtually target civilian cities and have killed civilians ( by sheer luck, I must say, thank goodness).

Military Parade In Gaza Photos and Images | Getty Images

That is not to say when Hamas wears IDF uniforms to ambush Israeli soldiers:

Hamas terrorists wear Israeli army uniforms to ambush soldiers in Gaza

The next generation:

Ynetnews News - Guns and camouflage: Welcome to Hamas' summer-camp


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 9, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


No, it is always foreign Israeli troops attacking civilians.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 9, 2017)

Don't you get it Sixties Fan?  Its really quite simple.  

See ALL Israelis (Jews) are foreign invaders and therefore no international humanitarian law apples to them.  You can do anything you want to them -- including murder.  

Palestinians, on the other hand, are always civilians.  And they have a right to use violence against Israelis while remaining immune to any sort of defensive action or law enforcement.  

See?  Its simple international humanitarian law.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 9, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Don't you get it Sixties Fan?  Its really quite simple.
> 
> See ALL Israelis (Jews) are foreign invaders and therefore no international humanitarian law apples to them.  You can do anything you want to them -- including murder.
> 
> ...



It is actually like this:

ALL Palestinians are civilians

ALL Israelis are military, therefore legal targets

It is more like, Arab humanitarian law


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 9, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Don't you get it Sixties Fan?  Its really quite simple.
> 
> See ALL Israelis (Jews) are foreign invaders and therefore no international humanitarian law apples to them.  You can do anything you want to them -- including murder.
> 
> ...


Indeed, thank you.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 9, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you get it Sixties Fan?  Its really quite simple.
> ...




Do you have any idea how disgustingly abhorrent it is to suggest that it is permissible to kill an entire group of people due to their nationality or ethnicity?  Not to mention how disgustingly abhorrent it is to make another entire group of people immune from the law.

You celebrate that?!  Vile.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 9, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you get it Sixties Fan?  Its really quite simple.
> ...





Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



1)  The Jester does not understand sarcasm

2) The fool is too lost, as a Christian, in the need to keep Jews down to the ground - where Christians like him believe Jews belong.
In the gutter, in the Ghetto, in concentration camps, being hung, being burned, being shot at, rammed at, etc, etc, etc.

Whatever this bastion of Christianity believes Jews deserve, is what he insists they deserve.

That is the only thing that does not evolve in Christianity.
The need to bash and kill Jews at the first opportunity.

The vile Jester fulfills Christianity's need to do away with its favorite scapegoat.  At its own cost.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 9, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Not so, it is due to their actions.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 9, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


WOW!


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 9, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You hate it that Israel does not put an end to the attacks from Gaza once and for all, as it could?

You hate that Israel gives medical assistance to Arabs, both in Gaza and Areas A and B, sometimes and usually at no cost?

You hate that Israel gives medical assistance to the Syrians who need it, regardless of who they are?

You hate that Israel gives jobs to Arabs and lets so many come into the country, at some risk to Israelis?

You hate that Israel hires so many Arabs in Judea and Samaria and pays them better then the PA would ever want to?

You hate it that Israel makes sure that Hamas does not take over from Abbas in Areas A and B?


We know about all the things you hate about Israel's actions.

You are a vile fool, Mr. Jester.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 9, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



WOW, you really have a hard time understanding English.

Oh, well......


----------



## Shusha (Sep 9, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not so, it is due to their actions.



No.  Its not.  Gazan rockets and suicide bombers and car rammers and knife stabbers do not try to kill Israelis (really Jewish Israelis, so -- Jews) who are acting badly in the moment.  They are using violence to attack Israelis (Jews) who are THERE. Its the presence of Jewish people on their ancestral and historical land that you are using, have used, MANY times to justify the moral and legal permissibility to kill them.  As a group.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 9, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Not so, it is due to their actions.
> ...





Shusha said:


> They are using violence to attack Israelis (Jews) who are THERE.


Indeed, illegal settlers living on stolen land. Not exactly "innocent civilians."


----------



## Shusha (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



So, thank you for retracting your previous post that it has to do with their actions as opposed to their mere presence.  

Its still a vile premise that its okay to murder an entire group of people because they are there.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Living on stolen land is an action.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 10, 2017)

So many opportunities to back away from the disgusting.  But no, you keep doubling down on it instead.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Shusha said:


> So many opportunities to back away from the disgusting.  But no, you keep doubling down on it instead.


Living on stolen land is disgusting.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > So many opportunities to back away from the disgusting.  But no, you keep doubling down on it instead.
> ...


Tell that to your invading / colonizing Islamist heroes.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > B
> ...



That's an interesting concept actually...

You are right... Israel does attack 'civilians'...

However, I have never seen many 'civilians' around the world carrying rocket launchers!

Do you think that is why Hamas is considered a terrorist group? Full of 'civilians'? There is of course the military wing of Hamas to consider... Would you consider them 'civilians' also?

If Hamas had an 'army' that attacked Israel then would Israel not be justified in retaliation?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Did I see civilians throwing stones in that video?

Just imagine what would happen in the US if civilians went out on the streets and started throwing stones at the police there!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


Retaliation is an interesting term to use for a country that drove 750,000 people out of their homes in 1948 and is still ethnically cleansing Palestinians out of their homes today.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


I don't know. I don't recall ever seeing foreign police in the US.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Indeed, retaliation is an interesting term when faced with:

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)"


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


What about the 40 years of occupation before there was a Hamas?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What about the 1,400 years of Joooo hatred that is enshrined in your korans?

What about ignoring the Hamas charter? Convenient when you're flailing your Pom Poms for Islamic terrorists.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Do you know, and I seriously mean this...

I wish you were an Israel supporter!

Your half baked arguments and your attempt at being 'clever' really do more harm than good to the Palestinian cause!

Your views and opinions are so screwed up, so biased, founded upon nothing more than hate and your own interpretation of facts, you really make no contribution to this board or the desire for a Palestinian state.

My views, support for peace, for Palestine and for Palestinians is as strong today as it has always been... 

I believe in the same values as I have always done as far as Israeli "occupation", "Settlers", "belligerence" yet I also have the mind to not demonise Israel or Jews as you do... Your opinions and beliefs simply do not stack up in ANY debate! 

I wonder if it is possible to kick you OUT of the pro Palestinian camp and send you packing to the pro Israeli camp? At the moment you do more for the pro Israeli argument than you do for the pro Palestinian one!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


OK, but what does that have to do with my post?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Ok, but why can you not think for yourself and answer the post you just answered for what it says?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 10, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Do you know, and I seriously mean this...
> 
> I wish you were an Israel supporter!
> 
> ...



Humanity, thank you for this.  I want to emphasize some things.  I believe this is the essence of why there is no peace. * How can the Jewish people make peace with those who believe they have no fundamental human right to life, because they are Jews?*

Its not the fact of the terrorism but the underlying foundation of it which is so vile and toxic its impossible to conceive of a peace.  Its not the fact of lack of recognition of Israel by Arab countries, its the underlying foundation that Israel can not exist, because they are Jews.  Its not the "settlements", its the foundation that they can't live here in my country, because they are Jews.

Where is the space to make peace with people like Tinmore?  (And let's be honest here, Tinmore is not even close to the worst of them, vile as his ideas are.)


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 10, 2017)

This is a most interesting article from "Elder of Zion" which deals with what Shusha just wrote:

Facebook Notes # 1  (Michael Lumish) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Humanity (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The stupidity is strong with this one OB-1

If you really do not understand how my comment relates to your post then you have no right posting!

In fact, it mostly shows that you have little to no interest in the Palestinian people...

Just your abject hatred for Jews!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know, and I seriously mean this...
> ...


I never said that.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



What exactly DIDN'T you say that Shusha has written?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Its not the fact of lack of recognition of Israel by Arab countries, its the underlying foundation that Israel can not exist, because they are Jews. Its not the "settlements", its the foundation that they can't live here in my country, because they are Jews.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You may not have said it exactly, but have you not said several times that Israel does not exist?

Isn't it true that all nearly all Arab and Muslim countries do not recognize Israel's legal right to exist because it is governed by Jews?  It is the sovereign State of the Jewish People?

Is it not true, that in spite of Judea and Samaria, being the foundation of the Jewish People, its most ancient land, that the Arabs/Muslims insist in saying that Israel, the Jews, have stolen not only that land, but all of Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Isn't it true that all nearly all Arab and Muslim countries do not recognize Israel's legal right to exist because it is governed by Jews?


No, because they consider it an occupation.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it true that all nearly all Arab and Muslim countries do not recognize Israel's legal right to exist because it is governed by Jews?
> ...


And that's why they're all at war with each other.
And you're just as dumb as your fellow Arabs.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it true that all nearly all Arab and Muslim countries do not recognize Israel's legal right to exist because it is governed by Jews?
> ...



I am sorry, but that is a simpleton's answer.

Al Husseini did not start riots against the Jews because they were "occupiers" in 1920.  He started it because the Jews were working in achieving sovereignty over their own traditional ancient homeland.

Al Husseini clan, like all the other Arab clans are the occupiers of the Jewish Homeland.

Muslims do not say that ALL territory conquered by Muslims will always belong to Islam for nothing.  They continue to consider any and all land they have ever conquered as part of the Muslim  Nation.  That includes all parts of Europe they were expelled from centuries ago.

I do not know which teachings you keep holding on to, but they are ignorant teachings, and you seem to insist on remaining ignorant.

There are so many Arabs and Muslims who embrace Israel for what it rightfully is.  The rightful home of the Indigenous Jewish People, who managed to reconquer some of their land from the Arab and Turkish Muslims and turned it into a country one can be proud of.

In the meantime, some Muslims continue to live in the dark ages, insist in demanding the destruction of Israel, for the one and only reason because it is governed by Jews.

You will not see the Arabs turn against the Hashemites who are governing what should have been part of the Jewish Homeland, Jordan.  It is in Muslim hands and that is all that matters to them.

Stop making excuses for your ignorance.

Israel does not occupy anyone's land.

The Arabs are occupying Jewish land in Jordan, Areas A and B or Judea and Samaria, and in Gaza.

That is a Historical fact you will need to get used to.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Al Husseini did not start riots against the Jews because they were "occupiers" in 1920.


The British/Zionist occupation started in 1917.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Al Husseini did not start riots against the Jews because they were "occupiers" in 1920.
> ...



Tin man, the Jewish people are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, call it Palestine all one likes.

Indigenous people NEVER occupy their own land.  It is a contradiction in terms.

The British, on the other hand, are foreigners who WON the land from the Ottomans because the Ottomans were foolish enough to partner with Germany in WWI and lost all of the land they had acquired for 500 years.

The British, and the French as Victorious Allies, had every right to do with the spoils they gained, whichever way they wanted to.
The Turks still ended up with a very large piece of land, just check the map of Turkey.

The Arabs, who are ALL conquering invaders to ALL lands outside of Arabia, ended up with 99% of the land which had been under the Turks.

Not one indigenous people was granted their own land, no matter who they were, including the Kurds who were a very large number of people.

The Jewish People had every right to make business with the British and grant that their land be given back to them, without any of the population being evacuated for that purpose.

It was the Arabs who wanted to rid the land of the Jews from 1920 to 1948, succeeding many times as I have written before.
It is all historical fact.

The Arabs chose war against the Jews, to keep the Jews from regaining sovereignty over their traditional ancient homeland.
The Arabs lost the war of 1948 which they started.
The Arabs lost the war of 1956 which they started.
The Arabs lost the war of 1967 which they started.
The Arabs lost the war of 1973 which they started.

The Arabs continue to lose in every possible way, only with the hope of destroying a country the Jews have every right to have, including living in Judea and Samaria which the Hashemites and other Arabs occupied from 1948 to 1967.


Yes, we can tell that this is not the history you know.
What you know is the narratives (stories) of how the Jews do not have the right to the land and are "Occupiers".

Neither you, nor any other poster has been able to prove that Jews can actually be called occupiers in their own traditional ancient homeland.


Will you please give an answer longer than one line on it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The British, and the French as Victorious Allies, had every right to do with the spoils they gained, whichever way they wanted to.


The Palestinian land was ceded to Palestine. Britain did not get any of it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The Arabs lost the war of 1948 which they started.


The Palestinians lost that war?

Link?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > The Arabs lost the war of 1948 which they started.
> ...



Do not be a dunce.

Did they destroy Israel as they wanted?  Did they kill all the Jews?

Israel was still standing, so YES, the Arabs lost the war regardless of them having so many more people to attack Israel then there were Jews in Israel.

The "Palestinians" had they gone alone, would have lost that war much earlier, which they started actually as soon as the UN
set up the Partition the Arab League refused to accept in November 1947.

"The Palestinians" you ask?
What, all of those Arabs who came into Mandate Palestine illegally from 1920 to 1948?

"The Palestinians" who only ended up with that name because Arafat chose to use it in 1964 while he was in Moscow planning with Russia on how to destroy Israel?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The  ... /Zionist occupation started in 1917.



Nope. It started circa 1200 BCE.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it true that all nearly all Arab and Muslim countries do not recognize Israel's legal right to exist because it is governed by Jews?
> ...



It's not Jewish government that is the problem. It's Jews being there. It's the presence of Jews that is the problem.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 10, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it true that all nearly all Arab and Muslim countries do not recognize Israel's legal right to exist because it is governed by Jews?
> ...



Strangely enough you are BOTH wrong!

The Arabs and Muslims I have spoken to, in their own Arab/Muslim countries, don't actually have an issue with Israel existing. That is fact! Whether it is governed by Jews or Muslims. The fact that Israel exists, from my personal experience, is not the issue here!

Not ONE Arab/Muslim I have met has considered Israel as an "occupation" either!

If you believe wither of those two 'ideas' then you really have no experience of Israel/Jews or Arab/Muslims!

You have this extremely low level understanding of the situation and, sorry to say, neither of you are right!


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 10, 2017)

Humanity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



I do not understand where you got the idea that if Israel is governed by Jews or Arabs/Muslims it is ok with the Muslim world.

Could you tell me what Muslims you have been speaking to?
Are they part of any of the Muslim governments?  Have any one of them said that it is ok, after the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and all the wars started from Gaza or Lebanon, that any one of these involved in trying to destroy Israel are going to be ok if Israel continues to exist?

Where did you get the idea that I have no experience of Israel/Jews or Arab/Muslims?

What is the experience you are coming from, exactly?

Have you met anyone in Gaza or Ramallah?
They are not telling you that Israel is occupying "their" land?

So, what are all of those videos, and news fromAl Jazeera, BBC, NYT, etc, calling Judea and Samaria and "East Jerusalem" as occupied Palestinian territories?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 10, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



Jews being sovereign over their own country is a problem.  Especially on conquered Muslim land.

Jews and a Jewish government seem indeed to be the double problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Tin man, the Jewish people are the indigenous people of the Land


Then why did they have to expel 750,000 people in 1948 and continue to expel people today?


----------



## Linkiloo (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I think that Humanity exists in a fanstasy world where arabs do not have a problem with jews in the region. Strangely enough on this very thread we hear the opposite. Jews are clearly called occupiers and have no rights and never will.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 11, 2017)

Linkiloo said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Correct, Israel DOES occupy territory that is not theirs!

However, Israel, as a country, does exist and has as much right to exist as the US or any other country in the world. The Jews have every right to live peacefully in Israel!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 11, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...





Humanity said:


> The Jews have every right to live peacefully in Israel!


OK, but that is not an exclusive right. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others. Nobody has the right to expel citizens and steal their land. Nobody has the right to impose a government, at the force of arms, on a people in the opposition of the vast majority of the people. Nobody has the right to brutally rule over a people who have no say in the government that rules them.

Religion is irrelevant.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



Exactly what territory, belonging to other people before it became Israel, does it occupy?
Name the areas specifically. And name the people it belonged to.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Linkiloo said:
> ...



Golan Heights
Syria

Next?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Linkiloo said:
> ...



Extra !  Extra !  Reporting directly from the Middle East we have our most important and most experienced Journalist, in Muslim, Jewish, and everything else that happens over there - issues.

Everything he says should be believed in because he has lived in the Middle East, especially in Israel, where he reports the most amazing stories we will ever hear about.

He has been there from the beginning, since 1920, and has witness the absolutely brutal 
behavior of the Jews on the Arab indigenous people of the area.
Before and after 1948.  With each and every war the Jews started, our reporter has witness the ethnic cleansing of thousands and thousands of the rightful owners of the land by this savages who now call themselves Israelis.

This "Israelis" do not fool anyone with their evacuation of Gaza in 2005.
This "Israelis" do not fool anyone by saying that they are the ones who are the indigenous people of the land.
This "Israelis" are not the people the Muslims had under rule for 1300 years.  ONLY the people who were under the rule of the Muslims are the ones with the right to remain in Palestine.
This "Israelis" say that they Muslims who live in Israel have the right to vote, and be a part in the government, but our expert journalist has uncovered the vile secret that there is not one none Jew in the Knesset, or in any important role in government or anywhere else in the country.

There is only one thing our expert Journalist, winner of so many awards in excellence in Journalism, could conclude about Israel and this so called Jews, which the world agrees with:

ISRAEL IS AN APARTHEID COUNTRY, where the government behaves exactly as the Europeans did in South Africa.
They must be boycotted, they must be made to change their ways, and put a stop to the brutal behavior against the indigenous Arab, Druze and Beduin people of Palestine.

Congratulations to our illustrious Journalist for his indefatigable work, which must never stop, not until Israel changes its ways and joins all the other civilized countries of the world.


Our sincere thanks, and continue the good job.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Syria lost the Golan Heights in a war.  It is a disputed territory.
A territory where the Syrians could easily attack and murder Jews at will .

That is a piece of land which will never go back to Syria, because Syria is not at peace with Israel, because if given back to murderous Muslims, they would be at the top of it 
doing target practice on Jews again.

Smart live Jews, are better then dumb dead ones.


----------



## teddyearp (Sep 11, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> What about the 40 years of occupation before there was a Hamas?


What about the 20 years of Egyptian and Jordanian occupation?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



Interesting use of the word "disputed" when you know that it really is "occupied"...

The whys and wherefores are a completely different matter.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



It is not occupied.  It belongs to Israel.  Israel is never returning it.

Whys and wherefores are the matter.

Jews have the right to live safely in Israel.  Syrians would not want to see Jews and non Jews in Israel safe.

Safety comes first.

And you do not care that the Hashemites occupied Gaza and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (why that Quarter? ) and all of Judea and Samaria for 19 years, or do you?
The Muslims consider the Israelis taking back their own land, "Occupation" and continue to attack the Jews to ethnically cleanse the area of Jews AGAIN.

Whys and wherefores do matter very much to people who want to stay alive and free.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> It is not occupied. It belongs to Israel. Israel is never returning it.



It IS occupied... Your denial won't change facts.

You stating that "Israel is never returning it"... Suggests that you know the truth.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > It is not occupied. It belongs to Israel. Israel is never returning it.
> ...



What I know is that Syria is at war with Israel, like most Muslim countries are.
What I know is that Syria is very unstable right now, with a civil war of its own.
What I know is that many Syrian rockets have already found their way to Israel, or purpose or accidentally.
What I know is that there is no Peace treaty between Israel and Syria.
What I know is that lives are at risk in Israel, all of them, not only Jews, from Syria's civil war.
What I know, is if Israel were to even think of giving the Golan Heights to Syria, as it is in the middle and depth of a civil war - all anti Israel groups would take advantage of it and sniper kill as many Jews as they could and set up an attack on Israel from that Hill.

I know the truth that Syria was one of the Arab countries which CHOSE to attack Israel not only in 1948, but in 1967 as well.

Syria made the bad choice, just as Jordan made the bad choice.  There is no going back to what it was.
There is no going back to being easy targets against Jordanians or Syrians.
It is enough that they continue to educate their generations to hate Jews and murder as many as they can.

Israel is NOT a suicidal nation, you understand this or not.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



So you DO accept that it is occupied territory then...

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



No, Humanity, it can be described as Disputed territory, but it is not occupied.
The only way to deal with the dispute is see that Syria does what Egypt and Jordan did.
Negotiate for peace.  Israel ended up returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt because of negotiations.

Israel is not obligated to simply return any land won in a war it did not start and which would mean that the enemy would go back to killing all below the Golan Heights as it wished.

You are not clear as to what means what in this conflict.

This is not Tibet and China, or Western Sahara and Morocco, or Northern Cyprus and Turkey.

The Syrians declared war on Israel for the second time in 1967.  They lost the Golan Heights where they had snipers hitting Israelis from above.

Let me repeat it again and make myself very clear.

Israelis are not SUICIDAL .


----------



## Shusha (Sep 11, 2017)

Humanity, would agree that the Golan Heights is the only territory not belonging to Israel which Israel occupies?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan,

Legally, the Golan Heights is occupied territory, because it is clearly under the sovereignty of another State by treaty. That said, I think Israel occupies Golan Heights legitimately and that returning it at this point is such a strong security threat, that Israel is justified in continuing to maintain an occupation there.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

Here are the facts on how Golan Heights became part of Israel:

On June 9, 1967, Israel moved against Syrian forces on the Golan. By late afternoon, June 10, Israel was in complete control of the plateau. Israel's seizure of the strategic heights occurred only after 19 years of provocation from Syria, and after unsuccessful efforts to get the international community to act against the aggressors.

Six years later, in a surprise attack on Yom Kippur, the Syrians overran the Golan Heights before being repulsed by Israeli counterattacks. After the war, Syria signed a disengagement agreement that left the Golanin Israel's hands. Israel returned the city of Kuneitra to Syria, and a UN-patrolled buffer zone was created between the two armies.

On December 14, 1981, the Knesset voted to annex the Golan Heights. The statute extended Israeli civilian law and administration to the residents of the Golan, replacing the military authority that had ruled the area since 1967.


The Golan Heights

Question:  Didn't Jordan disengage from the areas it took from 1948 to 1967?
It has no more say on any of those areas it took in 1948.

How is Israel occupying the Golan Heights if Syria signed an agreement giving it up after it attacked Israel in 1973?


----------



## fanger (Sep 11, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Humanity, would agree that the Golan Heights is the only territory not belonging to Israel which Israel occupies?


Apart from Jerusalem
*The Four Quarters of the Old City1- Jewish Quarter* *2- Muslim Quarter* *3- Armenian Quarter* *4- Christian Quarter*


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

This is what it meant when Israel disengaged from Gaza:

Israeli disengagement from Gaza - Wikipedia


----------



## fanger (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> This is what it meant when Israel disengaged from Gaza:
> 
> Israeli disengagement from Gaza - Wikipedia


israel still controls the borders, airspace and maritime approaches


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 11, 2017)

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > This is what it meant when Israel disengaged from Gaza:
> ...


Damn impressive!


----------



## Shusha (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Question:  Didn't Jordan disengage from the areas it took from 1948 to 1967?
> It has no more say on any of those areas it took in 1948.
> 
> How is Israel occupying the Golan Heights if Syria signed an agreement giving it up after it attacked Israel in 1973?



Article 8:  This agreement is not a peace agreement. It is a step toward a just and durable peace on the basis of Security Council Resolution 338 dated October 22, 1973.

Syria did not cede any of the territory.  Therefore the original border still stands.  (As opposed to a peace treaty such as with Jordan where she withdrew any claims to the territory).

I would agree with you that it is more properly labelled "annexed" than "occupied", though.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 11, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Question:  Didn't Jordan disengage from the areas it took from 1948 to 1967?
> ...


It is illegal to annex occupied territory.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 11, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> It is illegal to annex occupied territory.



Generally.  There are exceptions.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



No SF... It is described as "disputed territory" ONLY by Israel and Israel supporters... That is a fact!

How is it NOT not Tibet and China, or Western Sahara and Morocco, or Northern Cyprus and Turkey?

The legalities of taking territory through conflict is better left for those who want to argue the legal jargon. 

Annexation however, is NOT a right that Israel has! Unless you are Israel or an Israel supporter.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Did Tibet attack China and then lose the territory?
Did Cyprus attack Turkey and then lose territory?
What is going on with Morocco and Western Sahara?

Do you actually know the history of these conflicts?

If ever Syria goes back to normal and there is a legal government ready to negotiate Peace with Israel, that is when the issue will be resolved.
Until then Israel will keep the Golan Heights part it has, as agreed with Syria after 1967 or 1973 and will continue to make sure that the Muslims in Syria don't find great places to turkey shoot the Jews from up there.

Support what you want to support.  The facts on the ground are far different than the fairy tale you seem to live in.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 11, 2017)

The Case for Israeli Sovereignty in the Golan Heights


----------



## Humanity (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Did Cyprus attack Turkey and then lose territory?



Excellent...

You chose my second favorite subject 

I would love to hear your opinion on this particular conflict!

You are aware of why Turkey sent troops into Cyprus?

Don't worry I will continue to support who I want... I will also continue to say that it is only Israel and pro Israel supporters who believe that there is no "occupation"... Every other country believes it IS occupied territory under international law... You choose your fantasy and I will choose fact!


----------



## Humanity (Sep 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The Case for Israeli Sovereignty in the Golan Heights



Trying to present a case for occupation and annexation of territory is pretty pointless, unless you believe that the territory is occupied!


----------



## teddyearp (Sep 11, 2017)

I think the topic of 'occupied' vs. 'disputed' territories is a great topic for a brand new thread. Humanity I think I will ask in the 'higher council'  how best to have that one member phrase it, lol.


----------



## Linkiloo (Sep 12, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Pity the Arabs don't agree and do not recognise Israel's right to exist, also prior to '67. How does that square with your insight?


----------



## Humanity (Sep 12, 2017)

Linkiloo said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Linkiloo said:
> ...



I can only speak from my perspective...

Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...

That applies to ANY country!


----------



## Shusha (Sep 12, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...
> 
> That applies to ANY country!



Actually the right to self defense is one of the few exceptions to the general prohibition against occupying territory under another's sovereignty.  (And note the proper distinction -- the law does not say that one can not occupy territory outside one's own sovereignty, but that one can't encroach upon another's sovereignty.  Its an important distinction.)

Sixties Fan and I are arguing that the circumstances surrounding Golan Heights are such that occupation (and possibly annexation) is legally supportable.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 12, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...
> ...



The semantics of your argument are for the lawyers not for us to bat around like kids! In that... You accept you cannot "encroach" upon another's sovereignty but it's ok to "occupy"? How does one occupy WITHOUT encroaching? 

That is a rhetorical question as I really do not want to get into a 'bat and ball' scenario over semantics.

And, as much as I love you Shusha...

Links please that legally support the occupation (Thank you at least for accepting it is occupation) and annexation are "legally supported"...


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 12, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



In a previous post, an article referred to the Disengagement Agreement between Israel and Syria.

You may read it here:

Separation of Forces Agreement Between Israel And Syria (May 1974)


----------



## teddyearp (Sep 12, 2017)

It does seem as though that agreement is being upheld as I saw U.N. peacekeepers on Mount Bental.


----------



## Humanity (Sep 12, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I am aware of the agreement...

Though I am not sure how this goes anywhere to proving very much as far as occupation or not... This is a separation of "forces" not a delineation of borders.

Further, the agreement has been, as always, 'manipulated' by the signed parties to their own benefit causing confusion and further disagreement.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 12, 2017)

Humanity said:


> The semantics of your argument are for the lawyers not for us to bat around like kids! In that... You accept you cannot "encroach" upon another's sovereignty but it's ok to "occupy"? How does one occupy WITHOUT encroaching?


Its not semantics, its law.  Its important to view conflicts with respect to law and with objectivity, otherwise conflicts become no more than who can create the "best" story of victimization or the "best" demonization of the other.  The reason I pointed out the distinction is because it does not apply to _terra nullius_.  And that may be a relevant distinction with respect to certain aspects of the conflict.  

It is absolutely permissible to conduct military operations and (temporarily) occupy another sovereign's territory if that sovereign has committed an act of war against you (_jus ad bellum_).  UN Charter Article 51:  _Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.
_
We agree so far, yes?  That military requirements in the process of defending one's sovereignty and population permit the requirements of war to (temporarily) take precedence over territorial borders.  That the conditions of battle will dictate where armies fight, as opposed to imaginary lines on a map.  And height matters in war.  



> Links please that legally support the occupation (Thank you at least for accepting it is occupation) and annexation are "legally supported"...


Of course its an occupation/annexation.  Israel never had sovereignty over that territory.  Whether or not Israel meets the requirements for annexation is a much trickier subject.  The requirements are stringent.  However, I think it is justified.  

If we are agreed on the principle that occupation can be legally permissible, I can move to the harder stuff.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 12, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...





Humanity said:


> This is a separation of "forces" not a delineation of borders.


Indeed just like the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements.


----------



## JoelT1 (Sep 30, 2017)

Israel has existed dating back over 3000 years Who else can say this?




Shusha said:


> I was loathe to begin a new thread on this topic when it came up on another one, because, quite frankly, the claim is so ridiculous it does not deserve discussion, let alone its own thread.  However, since it is likely to drive the other thread off-topic...
> 
> The claim made on the other thread was that *Israel does not exist*.  The context of this assertion is the vile notion that it is not possible to commit a crime against Israel or Israelis (read: Jews), including war crimes and humanitarian crimes -- thus absolving Arabs of all wrong-doing when Israel (read: Jews) is the target.
> 
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.
> ...


----------



## fanger (Sep 30, 2017)

Immigration to Israel during the late 1940s and early 1950s was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Mossad LeAliyah Bet ("Institution for Illegal Immigration")  Israel - Wikipedia
israel is 70 years old established by illegal immigrants into palestine the illegal immigrants should get free swimming lessons


----------



## JoelT1 (Sep 30, 2017)

fanger said:


> Immigration to Israel during the late 1940s and early 1950s was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Mossad LeAliyah Bet ("Institution for Illegal Immigration")  Israel - Wikipedia
> israel is 70 years old established by illegal immigrants into palestine the illegal immigrants should get free swimming lessons



Um, Israel dates back over 3000 years, verified by archaeology. Jesus is King of Israel in the Bible.  Which other countries are that old?


----------



## fanger (Sep 30, 2017)

The *Balfour Declaration* was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population. It read:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine


----------



## fanger (Sep 30, 2017)

JoelT1 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Immigration to Israel during the late 1940s and early 1950s was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Mossad LeAliyah Bet ("Institution for Illegal Immigration")  Israel - Wikipedia
> ...


The illegal immigrants took over


----------



## JoelT1 (Sep 30, 2017)

fanger said:


> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



Arabs would be the Illegal immigrants. Jews are the indigenous People of Israel. Ever hear of the Hebrew Bible?


----------



## JoelT1 (Sep 30, 2017)

fanger said:


> The *Balfour Declaration* was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population. It read:
> 
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine



Palestine was merely Britain’s name for the Mandate, British Palestine, which ceased to exist with Israeli statehood. Palestine originated as a Roman name for ancient Israel, palaestina


----------



## teddyearp (Sep 30, 2017)

Nothing is being done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-jews who live in the portion of the old mandate that is now the state of Israel. Ever hear the Muslim calls to prayer ring out over Jerusalem? I have. And how about those non-Jews who sit in the kinneset?

Yet religious rights are severely restricted in the areas where perhaps a full on future state of Palestine may be established.

And we won't talk about the religious restrictions on the non Jewish controlled temple mount. It would ruin your Jew hating narrative, wouldn't it fanger?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2017)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Occupation is a little understood, and misused term.

Colonization is a more accurate term.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 30, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Mort Klein – There Is No Israeli 'Occupation': It’s Not Arab Land and 98 Percent of Palestinian-Arabs Live Under Arab Rule


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2017)

JoelT1 said:


> Palestine was merely Britain’s name for the Mandate, British Palestine, which ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.


Link?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 30, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Occupation is a little understood, and misused term.



Occupation is a term which has been deliberately misshapen to demonize Jews.


----------



## fanger (Sep 30, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Mort Klein – There Is No Israeli 'Occupation': It’s Not Arab Land and 98 Percent of Palestinian-Arabs Live Under Arab Rule



_Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).  _


----------



## Sixties Fan (Sep 30, 2017)

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Mort Klein – There Is No Israeli 'Occupation': It’s Not Arab Land and 98 Percent of Palestinian-Arabs Live Under Arab Rule
> ...


So what?
Can you not deal with what the article says?
Take one point at a time and debunk them.
Make your case.


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


The whole article is the opinion of a zionist, there is no need to bunk or debunk anything

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts
Customary IHL -  Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory

A War crime!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Occupation means possessing/exercising actual authority over _another country’s sovereign territory_. 

(Jordan renamed Judea/Samaria “the West Bank” during Jordan’s 19-year (1948-67) illegal occupation of the area, as explained below).​
So, what other country's sovereign territory did Jordan occupy?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...


Indeed, Morton Klein in BREITBART. A double propaganda whammy.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 1, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



Indeed, always unable to deal with the issues on the article.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...


I did. I posted a question. When I get an answer, I will move on to the next issue.


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...


I posted a couple of points on the "Article" as uncle mort states 
Moreover, even if Israel was an “occupying power,” settlements would still be perfectly legal – because only “forcible” transfers by an occupying power are prohibited. Here, Jews returned to Judea/Samaria _voluntarily_ – and there has been _no_ forcible transfer of Arabs out of these areas.
Which is false, I posted the actual wording 
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts

You are well known for ignoring actual facts, and prefer to quote opinions that coincide with your preformed mindset


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Your facts do not pass the test.  Jordan was the occupying force, as it took the land in an offensive war in 1948.
All Jews were expelled from that area by Jordan, then.

Israel got the land back from Jordan as Jordan again attacked Israel in an offensive war in 1967.
None of the Arabs were expelled from Judea, Samaria or the Jewish Quarter in 1967.  They live in the same places.

Jews have all the right to return to and live in their ancient homeland, without constantly being expelled by Arabs/Muslims who are foreigners to the land.

TransJordan is part of the Jewish homeland and it was given to the Hashemites against the Mandate for Palestine.
ALL Jews were expelled and never allowed to reside or buy land there again.

Keep up your twisted reality.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 1, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What was the question?


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Keep up your twisted reality.




My "Twisted reality" coincide's with wikipedia's and the whole world's (apart from you it seem's)


*Israeli settlements* are civilian communitieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#endnote_desc_ inhabited by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish ethnicity,[1][2] built predominantly on lands within areas of what the international community call the Palestinian territories, which Israel has militarily occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War,[3] and partly on lands considered Syrian territory also militarily occupied by Israel since the 1967 war. Such settlements within Palestinian territories currently exist in Area C of the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and within Syrian territory in the Golan Heights.

Israeli settlement - Wikipedia_


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Keep up your twisted reality.
> ...



Let me explain the Oslo Accords to you:

They separated Judea and Samaria into three areas.

Areas A and B = exclusively Arabs living in villages there.  No Jews. They are governed by the PA.

Area C = Jews live in that area along with 300,000 Arabs who were not made to be expelled from their homes as Jews were in 1920, 1925, 1929 and 1948 by the Arabs, from Gaza to TransJordan.

Those are not Palestinian Territories.  Those are the most ancient lands of the Jewish Nation, where the Jewish people inhabited non- stop until they were expelled by Jordanian forces in 1948.
Ancient Jewish History was written on those lands, and Arabs from any clans taking those lands by force, do not make them - suddenly- into Palestinian Territories.

Arabs were definitely NOT calling any of those lands "Palestinian Territories " between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan had those lands illegally.


It is absolutely fine with me if you use Wiki when it suits you.

The facts remain the same.

The Hashemite Arab clan invaded what was going to be part of Israel in 1948, took it by force, never worked on preparing any Palestinian State, never referred to the area it took as "Palestinian Territories"

Those are really the Jewish Nation Lands, and are in dispute until a final negotiation happens with any brave Arab, Muslim who will have the guts to put the weapons down and want to live in peace with the State of Israel by doing away with the PLO, PA and Hamas charters which proclaim they are ALL for the destruction of Israel.

Just as they were for the destruction of Israel in 1920, 1921, 1925, 1929, 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and all other wars Hamas, and even non Palestinians in Lebanon have been working on non stop with the attempt to destroy that Jewish State they do not care to be there, in the middle of all of that MUSLIM CONQUEST.

Enjoy your endless distortions of history.


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

Cough- *Golan*- cough


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> Cough- *Golan*- cough


Syria, *cough, *invaded Israel, cough, cough, lost part of the Golan, cough, cough, there is no one to negotiate a peace with so that Israelis will not be shot at as they were from 1948 to 1967

*Cough, cough, cough

*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> Occupation means possessing/exercising actual authority over _another country’s sovereign territory_.
> 
> (Jordan renamed Judea/Samaria “the West Bank” during Jordan’s 19-year (1948-67) illegal occupation of the area, as explained below).


So, what other country's sovereign territory did Jordan occupy?


----------



## teddyearp (Oct 1, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> (Jordan renamed Judea/Samaria “the West Bank” during Jordan’s 19-year (1948-67) illegal occupation of the area, as explained below).



Finally! An admission that Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria! To the extent that they even gave it a new name.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 1, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Judea and Samaria are rightfully a part of Israel, as the most ancient part of the land of the Jewish people.  Without the Jordanian invasion and attempt to annex it to the 78% of Jewish land the Hashemites got in 1925, that land would have been annexed to Israel.

In 1967 Israel could have, and should have expelled all the Arabs from those areas, as the Jordanians did with the Jews in 1948.

Because it did not do so, and that area was not part of a sovereign country for all of that time, it became a disputed area to be negotiated during a peace treaty.

By rights, it belongs to the Jewish people.  And Israel was more than ready to give up 93% of all of that land for a peace treaty.

Every time, the Muslims reject it.  Destroying Israel (your favorite mantra of Israel does not Exist) is what they, and you, are after.

Let us see what the future brings.

Will the Arabs ever sit down with Israel to negotiate any of these issues?


----------



## Shusha (Oct 1, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> So, what other country's sovereign territory did Jordan occupy?



Israel.


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > So, what other country's sovereign territory did Jordan occupy?
> ...


so are all the people living there israeli's with equal rights?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The Arabs and all other non Jews say so.  And more and more of the Arabs are applying to become citizens of Israel and not of the "State of Palestine"


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

israel tries hard not let the "state of palestine" exist


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


_Hasbara
"The natural response against anti-Zionism which derives from the hatred of Jewsand the desire to destroy Israel as a sovereign Jewish nation" 
did you mean Jew sand?_


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



You just do not like it that Arab, Muslims and Christians are applying from Israeli citizenship and not demanding an end to Israel or that Abbas hurry up that State of Palestine so that they will rush to become citizens of.

tsk tsk tsk


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> israel tries hard not let the "state of palestine" exist


Actually, you have that backwards. It seems apparent that the Arabs-Moslems who are masquerading as “Pal’Istanians” have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Statehood would impose responsibilities that they are wholly unable to respond to. The permanent condition of welfare recipient and their status as the poor, aggrieved victim (of their own ineptitude and incompetence), would quickly vanish if they were to be held accountable for the civil affairs of government. 

Although, “Pal'istanian” statehood would be an interesting experiment in just how quickly Arabs-Moslems could dismantle their new found “statehood”. The first rocket fired at Israel from the _state of Islamic terrorist’istan _would be an act of war. Even the talking heads at the UN would have a difficult time making excuses for an act of war. There would be no reason for a subsequent reprisal from Israel to be met with a flurry of pointless UN “condemnations”.

Maybe steal an opinion from Juan Cole?


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

your opinion seems to be a copy/paste  from Juan kerr


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

Hollie said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > israel tries hard not let the "state of palestine" exist
> ...


Samson apparently derived his strength by his hair, israel derives it's strength from it's horse USA, that strength will one day be taken away, what would poor israel do then?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> your opinion seems to be a copy/paste  from Juan kerr


You’re befuddled. I understand that. However, acts of war perpetrated by some future/imagined “State of Gaza’istan” could not be legitimately protected or excused. A response by Israel would be completely in accord with international norms. 

What can you cut and paste from Juan Cole in response?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



Let me help with your befuddlement. What role did the Great Satan™ play in the various wars of aggression waged and lost by Islamics in the past against Israel.

Troll Juan Coles site and steal what you can.


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

little Satan™ also known as "that shitty little country" will bite off more than they can chew pretty soon


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> little Satan™ also known as "that shitty little country" will bite off more than they can chew pretty soon


So, you agree. Your earlier stuttering and mumbling was pointless and ill-conceived.


----------



## fanger (Oct 1, 2017)

you started this breath holding, foot stamping
*Temper Tantrum*


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2017)

fanger said:


> you started this breath holding, foot stamping saga



I corrected your false claims. There’s no need to hold your breath and stomp your feet. Learn from your mistakes. 

Can’t find anything to steal from Juan Cole in rebuttal?


----------

