Israel does not exist

[Hollie]

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.

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.

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

 

[Shusha]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

Of course you refuted nothing.

As usual.

 

[Shusha]

#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]

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.

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?

Sure, help yourself.

 

[Shusha]

#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]

#3

The people have a right to territorial integrity.

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

#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]

#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]

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]

#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]

#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]

#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]

#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]

#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.

That is not what it says.

Look it up.

 

[Shusha]

#8

Occupiers do not acquire sovereignty.

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

 

[Shusha]

#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]

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]

#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]

#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.

That is not what it says.

Look it up.

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!