Israel does not exist

[Shusha]

#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.

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]

#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]

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.

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]

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]

#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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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

 

[Shusha]

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.

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

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]

"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]

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.

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

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.

Do you have any proof of that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

#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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

Do you have any proof of that?

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]

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

Which were?

 

[P F Tinmore]

#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]

#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.

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]

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]

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]

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?