Israel does not exist

[Shusha]

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]

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

 

[Boston1]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Links?

 

[Indeependent]

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

Links?

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

 

[Boston1]

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]

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

Links?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Like the Hebrews did when they came up from Egypt.

 

[Sixties Fan]

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.

Like the Hebrews did when they came up from Egypt.

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]

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.

Like the Hebrews did when they came up from Egypt.

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.

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]

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.

Like the Hebrews did when they came up from Egypt.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

Like the Hebrews did when they came up from Egypt.

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]

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