Israel does not exist

[montelatici]

Europeans were transferred to Palestine and land was taken from the native people to create a colony and to dispossess the inhabitants. That's the only fact.

 

[Indeependent]

No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.

OK, this is good so far. This is the timeline.

• The allied powers planned to divide the ME into successor states.

• They defined the international borders for those successor states.

• The Treaty of Lausanne released the territory and ceded the land to the respective states with the stipulation that the residents would become citizens of their respective state.

• As the citizens of their new state, the Palestinians acquired the standard list of inalienable rights. 1) The right to self determination without external interference. 2) The right to independence and sovereignty. 3) The right to territorial integrity.

• The Mandate’s failure to help create a functioning independent state had no affect on the inalienable rights above. The Mandate had no authority to violate any of the Palestinian’s basic rights.

• The Mandate left Palestine but all of the Palestinian’s basic rights remained.

Now, how can you create Israel without violating any of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians?

The word Palestine is very confusing. It was meant to confuse.
The British, not anyone else, chose to name that specific Mandate "Palestine". (Palestine (the Roman version of it) is what the Romans renamed Judea in 135 CE in order to humiliate the Jews and make them forget their homeland after they were defeated)

But this is what the Mandate for Palestine was for, and the people it was supposed to help create a State/country :

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and......

Art 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

--------------
The Mandate for Palestine was always meant to be the recreation of the Nation of the Jewish People. The Jews would be sovereign over the land (all 100 % of it, including TransJordan) with all other people living under Jewish sovereignty. ( As they still do in Israel)

This is something many here cannot recognize much less allow.

During the Mandate, all of those living in the region called Palestine became known as Palestinians, because of the name given to the mandate, and not because there ever had been a people called Palestinians in the region. There were businesses and Passports with the name of Palestine, because the British named the mandate so.

It was up to the Jewish people to name their Nation, just as the Iraqis chose Iraq (the indigenous may have wanted to keep Mesopotamia, who knows), once they became recognized as a country and declared Independence.

When Israel declared Independence in May 1948, their area of Palestine, after a second time rejected partition by the Arabs, became known as Israel. The State of Israel.

Also think about it for a minute, what right had Britain to decide to take land from the people living on the land to give it to people living on another continent? Does that make any sense?

You mean like France, Britain and Spain had been doing for centuries?
But with Israel it's a problem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.

OK, this is good so far. This is the timeline.

• The allied powers planned to divide the ME into successor states.

• They defined the international borders for those successor states.

• The Treaty of Lausanne released the territory and ceded the land to the respective states with the stipulation that the residents would become citizens of their respective state.

• As the citizens of their new state, the Palestinians acquired the standard list of inalienable rights. 1) The right to self determination without external interference. 2) The right to independence and sovereignty. 3) The right to territorial integrity.

• The Mandate’s failure to help create a functioning independent state had no affect on the inalienable rights above. The Mandate had no authority to violate any of the Palestinian’s basic rights.

• The Mandate left Palestine but all of the Palestinian’s basic rights remained.

Now, how can you create Israel without violating any of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians?

Very concise and to the point PF. I would add that Britain's active armed resistance to the Palestinian's (Muslim and Christian native people) struggle for self determination when they represented 90 plus percent of the population was the original sin, as eventually admitted by the British, in UN Resolution A/364.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.

The UK's response for UN Resolution A/364. was:

All we say—and I made this reservation the other day—is that we should not have the sole responsibility for enforcing a solution which is not accepted by both parties.​

It was not accepted by both parties so the Security Council did not implement the partition plan.

 

[Shusha]

The Jews would be sovereign over the land (all 100 % of it, including TransJordan) with all other people living under Jewish sovereignty.

And can I just point out that there is nothing inherently illegal about Jewish sovereignty.

 

[Sixties Fan]

No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.

OK, this is good so far. This is the timeline.

• The allied powers planned to divide the ME into successor states.

• They defined the international borders for those successor states.

• The Treaty of Lausanne released the territory and ceded the land to the respective states with the stipulation that the residents would become citizens of their respective state.

• As the citizens of their new state, the Palestinians acquired the standard list of inalienable rights. 1) The right to self determination without external interference. 2) The right to independence and sovereignty. 3) The right to territorial integrity.

• The Mandate’s failure to help create a functioning independent state had no affect on the inalienable rights above. The Mandate had no authority to violate any of the Palestinian’s basic rights.

• The Mandate left Palestine but all of the Palestinian’s basic rights remained.

Now, how can you create Israel without violating any of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians?

Very concise and to the point PF. I would add that Britain's active armed resistance to the Palestinian's (Muslim and Christian native people) struggle for self determination when they represented 90 plus percent of the population was the original sin, as eventually admitted by the British, in UN Resolution A/364.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.

The UK's response for UN Resolution A/364. was:

All we say—and I made this reservation the other day—is that we should not have the sole responsibility for enforcing a solution which is not accepted by both parties.​

It was not accepted by both parties so the Security Council did not implement the partition plan.

Why can UN Resolution A/364 be found only on UNISPAL ?

 

[Shusha]

Also think about it for a minute, what right had Britain to decide to take land from the people living on the land to give it to people living on another continent? Does that make any sense?

We've already covered this. Britain did no such thing. Britain, and the international community as a whole, simply acknowledged the Jewish peoples existing rights to their historical homeland. They gave them nothing. They just acknowledged their existing rights.

Just like if Israel ceded land to Palestine today -- she would not be "giving" Palestinians rights, she would only be acknowledging Arab Palestinians existing rights.

 

[Shusha]

Europeans were transferred to Palestine and land was taken from the native people to create a colony and to dispossess the inhabitants. That's the only fact.

Irrelevant to the topic -- which is whether or not Israel exists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.

OK, this is good so far. This is the timeline.

• The allied powers planned to divide the ME into successor states.

• They defined the international borders for those successor states.

• The Treaty of Lausanne released the territory and ceded the land to the respective states with the stipulation that the residents would become citizens of their respective state.

• As the citizens of their new state, the Palestinians acquired the standard list of inalienable rights. 1) The right to self determination without external interference. 2) The right to independence and sovereignty. 3) The right to territorial integrity.

• The Mandate’s failure to help create a functioning independent state had no affect on the inalienable rights above. The Mandate had no authority to violate any of the Palestinian’s basic rights.

• The Mandate left Palestine but all of the Palestinian’s basic rights remained.

Now, how can you create Israel without violating any of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians?

Palestine (Israel) was created way back in step 3 outlined above. A fully functioning and independent government was, in fact, created. Therefore, in the context of this thread -- nothing prevents Israel from existing as a state. All of the requirements have been fulfilled. And you have failed to prove otherwise. End.



But to touch on a few things:

No one's inalienable rights were removed in anyway by the government of that territory. The treaties guaranteed full civil rights for the Arab peoples under a Jewish State. Those civil rights have been honored scrupulously by Israel in law. (Unlawful discrimination exists, as it does everywhere). (Unlike, the Jewish civil rights, also supposedly guaranteed under those same treaties, which were grossly violated by a number of the actors involved, and even many who should not have been involved.)

Arab Palestinian people still have the right to self-determination, independence and sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have not achieved these things yet. But they have those rights.

"Territorial integrity" does not prohibit ceding territory to form two new nations, from two existing ethnic groups. It has been done dozens of times in the past hundred years since the end of the age of Empires.

You are bouncing around again. What happened to step 4?

Who has the authority to cede territory?

 

[Shusha]

You are bouncing around again. What happened to step 4?

Who has the authority to cede territory?

I am not bouncing around. I am taking them in order. Step 3 is State creation. It comes first. It ends the conversation for this thread. I addressed step 4 in my follow-up comments.

Who has the authority to cede territory? Only the sovereigns. Which is the government of Palestine (aka Israel).

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

You are STILL trying to make another magic entity appear that is NOT Israel. There is none.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore

You are STILL trying to make another magic entity appear that is NOT Israel. There is none.

Link?

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

You are STILL trying to make another magic entity appear that is NOT Israel. There is none.

Link?

Again with the bail?! I can not prove a negative. If you have proof that another legal entity exists which meets your four criteria (permanent population, government, defined territory, capacity to enter into relations with other states) then BRING IT. If not, just concede already and move on.

If you have proof that Israel does not qualify as a legal entity then BRING IT. If not, just concede and move on.



If I were you, I'd abandon the whole "Israel does not exist" thing. Its just silly. Instead, I would deflect the conversation to government representation, self-determination for only one people, and even apartheid. Those are all MUCH better arguments. Still lame arguments. But much better than this one.

 

[Hollie]

Like most every other thread in this forum, this thread has devolved into the usual Tinmore / Monty cut and paste slogans replete with the usual chatter of "links", "Zionist Invasions" and the Magical transformation of Turks, Islamist invaders and Christian Crusaders into "indigenous, native Arabs".

 

[Indeependent]

No, I am presenting simple concepts. You are making a claim and then utterly failing to bring information to support that claim. Let's talk about timelines then. Palestine became a defined territory in 1923. Those conditions still exist, nothing has changed them.

OK, this is good so far. This is the timeline.

• The allied powers planned to divide the ME into successor states.

• They defined the international borders for those successor states.

• The Treaty of Lausanne released the territory and ceded the land to the respective states with the stipulation that the residents would become citizens of their respective state.

• As the citizens of their new state, the Palestinians acquired the standard list of inalienable rights. 1) The right to self determination without external interference. 2) The right to independence and sovereignty. 3) The right to territorial integrity.

• The Mandate’s failure to help create a functioning independent state had no affect on the inalienable rights above. The Mandate had no authority to violate any of the Palestinian’s basic rights.

• The Mandate left Palestine but all of the Palestinian’s basic rights remained.

Now, how can you create Israel without violating any of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians?

Palestine (Israel) was created way back in step 3 outlined above. A fully functioning and independent government was, in fact, created. Therefore, in the context of this thread -- nothing prevents Israel from existing as a state. All of the requirements have been fulfilled. And you have failed to prove otherwise. End.



But to touch on a few things:

No one's inalienable rights were removed in anyway by the government of that territory. The treaties guaranteed full civil rights for the Arab peoples under a Jewish State. Those civil rights have been honored scrupulously by Israel in law. (Unlawful discrimination exists, as it does everywhere). (Unlike, the Jewish civil rights, also supposedly guaranteed under those same treaties, which were grossly violated by a number of the actors involved, and even many who should not have been involved.)

Arab Palestinian people still have the right to self-determination, independence and sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have not achieved these things yet. But they have those rights.

"Territorial integrity" does not prohibit ceding territory to form two new nations, from two existing ethnic groups. It has been done dozens of times in the past hundred years since the end of the age of Empires.

You are bouncing around again. What happened to step 4?

Who has the authority to cede territory?

Speaking of bouncing, you haven't answered my questions concerning your Treaty of "Lawrenrce of Arabia".
Probably because you're a sound-bite bullshit artist.

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore

You are STILL trying to make another magic entity appear that is NOT Israel. There is none.

Link?

Again with the bail?! I can not prove a negative. If you have proof that another legal entity exists which meets your four criteria (permanent population, government, defined territory, capacity to enter into relations with other states) then BRING IT. If not, just concede already and move on.

If you have proof that Israel does not qualify as a legal entity then BRING IT. If not, just concede and move on.



If I were you, I'd abandon the whole "Israel does not exist" thing. Its just silly. Instead, I would deflect the conversation to government representation, self-determination for only one people, and even apartheid. Those are all MUCH better arguments. Still lame arguments. But much better than this one.

As I posted lasted night in honor of PF, please provide a Link to something that doesn't exist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are bouncing around again. What happened to step 4?

Who has the authority to cede territory?

I am not bouncing around. I am taking them in order. Step 3 is State creation. It comes first. It ends the conversation for this thread. I addressed step 4 in my follow-up comments.

Who has the authority to cede territory? Only the sovereigns. Which is the government of Palestine (aka Israel).

My bad. I tried to make it simple for you. The Treaty of Lausanne actually states:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Were European Jews habitual residents of Turkey in 1923?

 

[Hollie]

You are bouncing around again. What happened to step 4?

Who has the authority to cede territory?

I am not bouncing around. I am taking them in order. Step 3 is State creation. It comes first. It ends the conversation for this thread. I addressed step 4 in my follow-up comments.

Who has the authority to cede territory? Only the sovereigns. Which is the government of Palestine (aka Israel).

My bad. I tried to make it simple for you. The Treaty of Lausanne actually states:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

Were European Jews habitual residents of Turkey in 1923?

Not a single mention of Pal'istan. It's odd, because you cut and paste the blurb above into thread after thread and never manage to make any case for your invented "country of Pal'istan".

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are bouncing around again. What happened to step 4?

Who has the authority to cede territory?

I am not bouncing around. I am taking them in order. Step 3 is State creation. It comes first. It ends the conversation for this thread. I addressed step 4 in my follow-up comments.

Who has the authority to cede territory? Only the sovereigns. Which is the government of Palestine (aka Israel).

My bad. I tried to make it simple for you. The Treaty of Lausanne actually states:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

Were European Jews habitual residents of Turkey in 1923?

Not a single mention of Pal'istan. It's odd, because you cut and paste the blurb above into thread after thread and never manage to make any case for your invented "country of Pal'istan".

Of course that was confirmed by the Mandate itself.
--------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

 

[Shusha]

My bad. I tried to make it simple for you. The Treaty of Lausanne actually states:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Were European Jews habitual residents of Turkey in 1923?

Cough cough. You tried to make it simple for yourself by asking an irrelevant question. Habitual residents are habitual residents regardless of whatever label you want to put on them to demonize them. Yes, the habitual residents of Palestine were to become citizens of Palestine (aka Israel). How does that clause prevent the existence of Palestine (Israel)? Where does this clause prevent a state from forming? Where does this clause prevent the formation of a government? Even a GASP! The HORROR! a government for a Jewish State?! Where does this clause prohibit immigration or the acceptance of Jewish refugees?

Sounds to me like you want to reframe the argument from "Israel does not exist" to "Israel did not grant citizenship to all the residents in her territory as she was compelled to do". Did you want to do that? Did you want to withdraw your previous claim and start a new one? I'll start a thread for it. I'm very accommodating that way.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, the habitual residents of Palestine were to become citizens of Palestine (aka Israel).

Then why are millions of Palestinians not Israelis?