Israel does not exist

[Sixties Fan]

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?

Political recognition was not my point.

Try again.

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.. ?

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.

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.

Name calling is a sign of losing.

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]

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]

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.

Israel, on the contrary, used military force in territory over which it had complete sovereignty.

Can you prove that?

 

[Humanity]

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]

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.

Israel, on the contrary, used military force in territory over which it had complete sovereignty.

Can you prove that?

Of course I can. I HAVE been proving it.

 

[Shusha]

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]

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.

Israel, on the contrary, used military force in territory over which it had complete sovereignty.

Can you prove that?

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]

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]

Surprisingly I have NEVER seen Israel called "48" on this forum...

Well, not on this forum, but I have heard it elsewhere.

 

[Sixties Fan]

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.

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]

and Israel (the recognized Government in Palestine).

Political recognition was not the question.

 

[Shusha]

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]

Political recognition was not the question.

Sure it is. Its one of the criteria.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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]

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]

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.

I didn't make the difference. It was Israel that made the difference.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

You are still dancing around the question about when Israel legally acquired any land

 

[Shusha]

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.

I didn't make the difference. It was Israel that made the difference.

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]

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]

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.

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?