Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[docmauser1]

Israel was declared inside Palestinian territory by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.[/i]

So, who was that sheikh, shakh, emir, pasha, sultan, president, prime-minister of that "state of palestine" to have territory as its own? That info exactamundo thoroughly we miss.

Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants. The entire planned population were foreign settlers who were imported by the Zionists to populate their planned state.

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill.
Major immigrant arab settlers calling others settlers, of course.

The Arab population declined from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1948.

• "The lowest estimates claim there were about 410,000 Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine in 1893. A Zionist estimate claimed there were over 600,000 Arabs in Palestine."
• "Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries. By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times."

Ami Isseroff can be trusted on this, of course.

Old Winney was full of shit.

Exposing major immigrant nature of palistanians is politically incorrect, indeed.

After WWII the voters soundly bounced his dumb ass.

A bit of history for the ignorant arab sector on it

 

[Hossfly]

The title of the OP is: Is Israel The Same As South Africa

The OP is based on an anti-Zionist propaganda site

Let us get back to the subject of the OP

Play by the rules and mind your manners

Now, why is Israel the same as South Africa? Anyone?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The title of the OP is: Is Israel The Same As South Africa

The OP is based on an anti-Zionist propaganda site

Let us get back to the subject of the OP

Play by the rules and mind your manners

Now, why is Israel the same as South Africa? Anyone?

Umm,

Nice weather?

 

[Coyote]

Israel is not "the same" as South Africa, but there are similarities in that there are genuine inequities based solely on ethnic identity and those include the distribution of infrastructure, process of granting permits for expansion or new settlements, the judicial system where crimes against Palestinians are seldom rigorously prosecuted and culprits brought to justice as well as abusive practices towards Palestinian children who end up incarcerated. When you add to that the attitudes of many Israeli's towards Palestinians - attitudes that have resulted in violent attacks recently and a serious alarm from Israeli leading figures - you can see why some call it "apartheid".

Israel is recognizing that it does have real concerns here and taking action to try and resolve them. That speaks volumes about it's overall society and puts it ahead of it's neighbors. I hope we see change towards greater equality for all continue.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is often latched-on to by regional terrorists.

Preamble

Affirming the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​

Exactamundo!

This is in complete compliance with international law.

(COMMENT)

While the "Preamble" is in compliance, the "Preamble" does not authorize "terrorism." That is because the "purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions" do not authorize "terrorism."

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming its role under the Charter, including on questions related to international peace and security,

Reiterating its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security,

SOURCE: A/RES/60/288

SOURCE: Secretary-General SG/SM/14764 SC/10883

I also found it interesting that you would try to bind the Middle East to a marginalized Western Hemisphere Regional Treaty Law (CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES); of which 15 of 35 (nearly half of the Americas) did not sign (plus Paraguay and Peru - original signatories - did not ratify or ultimately accept). But even it says that a state must have certain characteristics and duties:

• Must have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
  
  
  The Arab Higher Committee was disbanded and reconstituted by the Arab League. It was then that the Arab Palestinian, through the Arab League puppet of the Arab Higher Committee, rejected the GA/RES/181(II). The Arab Palestinian had no other independent voice of its own through which it could enter into relations with the other states.​

• The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
  
  
  Israel, exercising its right to self-determination, cannot be limited by the Arab Higher Committee (an instrumentality of foreign powers) that would prevent it from becoming its own state.
  

  "In November 1945, the Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee comprising twelve members as the supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine." "SOURCE #1"
  The covenant of the League of Arab States, or Arab League, formed in March 1945, contained an annex emphasizing the Arab character of Palestine. The Arab League appointed an Arab Higher Executive for Palestine (the Arab Higher Committee). SOURCE #2
  ​

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence.
  
  
  Israel, even before it was declared, had the right to exist and defend its sovereignty under the Convention. The War of Independence in which the integrity and independence were challenged by external forces, effectively solidified the establishment of the state.​

I could go on, but I see no need. Under the PNA Charter, and the HAMAS Covenant, this is contrary doctrine.

Remember, the State of Palestine was not declared until 1988, by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). One of the controversies today about the ability of the State of Palestine and the Arab Palestinians is (again) the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states." While the PLO acknowledged General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, saying "that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence;" there are still Arab Palestinian that insist that the Arab Palestinian have some claim over a "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate" and use it as a basis and justification for over six decades of conflict. Indeed, the PNA Charter and the HAMAS Covenant say as much. It is a situation in which the Arab Palestinian people demonstrate that they have no single governmental voice.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

Israel was declared inside Palestinian territory by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.[/i]

So, who was that sheikh, shakh, emir, pasha, sultan, president, prime-minister of that "state of palestine" to have territory as its own? That info exactamundo thoroughly we miss.

Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants. The entire planned population were foreign settlers who were imported by the Zionists to populate their planned state.

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill.
Major immigrant arab settlers calling others settlers, of course.

The Arab population declined from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1948.

Old Winney was full of shit.

After WWII the voters soundly bounced his dumb ass.

Tinmore, what does your post have to do with the OP? We're talking about Israel-South Africa here. Take your off-topic discussions to the Conspiricy Theory segment.

 

[P F Tinmore]

While the "Preamble" is in compliance, the "Preamble" does not authorize "terrorism." That is because the "purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions" do not authorize "terrorism."

That is true but I am still unclear on how the terrorist label applies to Palestine. You seem to hinge much of your posts on that without being clear on your premise.

Like how can they be labeled international terrorists when they do not leave their own territory? That, on its face, does not make any sense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

One of the controversies today about the ability of the State of Palestine and the Arab Palestinians is (again) the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

You think this is important. BTW, how about a link?

But you think this is irrelevant.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

edit:

the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

 

[toastman]

While the "Preamble" is in compliance, the "Preamble" does not authorize "terrorism." That is because the "purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions" do not authorize "terrorism."

That is true but I am still unclear on how the terrorist label applies to Palestine. You seem to hinge much of your posts on that without being clear on your premise.

Like how can they be labeled international terrorists when they do not leave their own territory? That, on its face, does not make any sense.

Are you saying that Palestinians, weather from Gaza or the West Bank, never commited acts of terrorism ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

While the "Preamble" is in compliance, the "Preamble" does not authorize "terrorism." That is because the "purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions" do not authorize "terrorism."

That is true but I am still unclear on how the terrorist label applies to Palestine. You seem to hinge much of your posts on that without being clear on your premise.

Like how can they be labeled international terrorists when they do not leave their own territory? That, on its face, does not make any sense.

Are you saying that Palestinians, weather from Gaza or the West Bank, never commited acts of terrorism ?

No, I am asking a question.

 

[toastman]

Oh, alright

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You commit terrorism when you: "violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a
party or which it is otherwise bound to respect."

While the "Preamble" is in compliance, the "Preamble" does not authorize "terrorism." That is because the "purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions" do not authorize "terrorism."

That is true but I am still unclear on how the terrorist label applies to Palestine. You seem to hinge much of your posts on that without being clear on your premise.

Like how can they be labeled international terrorists when they do not leave their own territory? That, on its face, does not make any sense.

(REFERENCE)

• Application of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations 23 September 2011

• General Assembly of this Declaration in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988

• Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine of 15 November 1988

• United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947

(SUMMARY)

After the Jewish Agency accepted the apportionment allocated in GA/RES/181(II), hostilities immediately ensued. A series of war were fought and Armistice Lines were drawn. In two cases, Israel concluded treaties with Egypt and Jordan; while 1949 Armistice Line held with Lebanon and Syria.

In November 1988, invoking GA/RES/181(II), the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Declared Independence for the State of Palestine and demanded:

• (b) Israel's withdrawal from all the Palestinian and Arab territories which it has occupied since 1967, including Arab Jerusalem;
  
• (c) Cancellation of all measures of attachment and annexation and removal of the settlements established by Israel in the Palestinian and Arab territories since the year 1967;

In effect, the State of Palestine was confined to Arab territories which were occupied since 1967, and Arab Jerusalem. In December 1988, the UN Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; and decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization."

On 23 September 2011, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the State of Palestine, recalling the 1988 Declaration of Independence, and invoking Part I, Section F (Admission to Membership in the UN), GA/RES/181(II), appealed to the UN for “sympathetic consideration” for the application of the State of Palestine for admission to the United Nations. President Abbas asked that bilateral recognition for the State of Palestine be given on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the number of such recognitions continues to rise with each passing day.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

SOURCE: General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXXV) of 24 October 1970

(COMMENT)

Prior to the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, the Palestinian Terrorist were non-state actors. After 1988, they became state sponsored terrorist actors; and still are today via the pledges made by the HAMAS Covenant and the Palestinian National Charter. Neither the Covenant or the Charter recognized the territorial limitation of the State of Palestine as Declared in 1988 and reaffirmed in 2011 in the Application for Admission.

However, the sovereignty of the State of Israel, with respect to the sovereignty declared by the PLO for the State of Palestine are recognized by international lines of demarcation of one sort or another. Nor did they respect the Treaty Lines or the Armistice Lines from the previous period. They are, unquestionably, terrorist that "act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources." Their previous history of past criminal behaviors included (not limited to) while crossing international lines of demarcation:

• attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
  
• attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
  
• kidnapping or hostage taking;
  
• causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
  
• seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco,

Show me where the UN transferred land to Israel under resolution 181.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco,

Are you saying that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is sovereign Palestinian territory?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh!

Rocco,

Show me where the UN transferred land to Israel under resolution 181.

Rocco,

Are you saying that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is sovereign Palestinian territory?

(COMMENT)

These are not real estate deals. Land transfers are done by sale and treaty. The creation of a sovereign state is done by declaration under the right of self-determination. There is no "transfer" --- not for any of the nine Arab States that were created. The Hejaz was absorb by (eventually) several nations including Egypt, Jordan and (of course Saudi Arabia (which got the lion's share).

Holy Cow, Yes! The State of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, and Arab Jerusalem) has been sovereign since 1988. Where have you been? However, "Arab Jerusalem" is still up under the ambiguous category.

Please take a moment and read: Status of Palestine in the United Nations A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012.

Highlights:

• Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
• Reaffirming ... the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine,
• Recalling also its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, by which it, inter alia, acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided that the designation “Palestine” should be used in place of the designation “Palestine Liberation Organization” in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system,
• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Now I did say that Jerusalem was an ambiguous case:

• Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Holy Cow, Yes! The State of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, and Arab Jerusalem) has been sovereign since 1988. Where have you been? However, "Arab Jerusalem" is still up under the ambiguous category.

What is different about Palestine's declaration of 1988 and its declaration of 1948?

Why is one mentioned and not the other?

 

[toastman]

Holy Cow, Yes! The State of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, and Arab Jerusalem) has been sovereign since 1988. Where have you been? However, "Arab Jerusalem" is still up under the ambiguous category.

What is different about Palestine's declaration of 1988 and its declaration of 1948?

Why is one mentioned and not the other?

You just answered your own question. There was no officially recognized declaration of independence by the Palestinians in 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Then:

Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,

1) If there really was a resolution 181, wouldn't Jerusalem be occupied UN territory?

2) If E. Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, what is there to negotiate?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco, from your link A/RES/67/19 of 4 December 2012

Reaffirming the principle, set out in the Charter, of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Why do they mention the territory acquired by force in 1967 and not the territory acquired by force in 1948?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are a few reasons for that.

Holy Cow, Yes! The State of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, and Arab Jerusalem) has been sovereign since 1988. Where have you been? However, "Arab Jerusalem" is still up under the ambiguous category.

What is different about Palestine's declaration of 1988 and its declaration of 1948?

Why is one mentioned and not the other?

(COMMENT)

First, GA/RES/181(II) was still active and on the table. Israel had accepted, the newly reconstituted Arab Higher Committee (Arab League) rejected.

Second, with the territory in trusteeship, the trustee would not entertain a second declaration covering the same territory as covered by the GA/RES/181(II) apportionment.

Third, on the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel (MAY), War broke-out and the Partition Plan was held in abeyance. By the time of the Armistice, territorial lines had changed and the Israeli areas of control had expanded. This outcome then took precedence over the Arab SEPTEMBER declaration and war of aggression. The Arab's were not to be rewarded for their defiance of the UN Trusteeship in their attempt to take by military force (acquisition by conquest) what was beyond the GA/RES/181(II) apportionment.

Most Respectfully,
R