Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Well, I'm not sure what kind of example you are looking for.

• Don’t forget about Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and then: Annexation.
• Chinese Invasion and Occupation then Annexation of Tibet.
• Cuba
• Puerto Rico
• Guam
• Phillipines

You are joking, right?

Crimea is quite complex as you have arguments for Russia re-acquiring sovereignty over a former territory along with the self-determination of the Crimeans themselves; most of the world doesn't recognise Russia's annexation, Crimea is considered occupied territory. Similarly China's annexation of Tibet is contested by the Tibetan government in exile and many consider Tibet illegally occupied. In both cases sovereignty is disputed. Cuba? See Teller Ammendment. Puerto Rico, Guam and the Phillipines were formal transfers of sovereignty by cession, so are irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Hawaii, for example, were originally a series of settlements, annexed in 1900. I think the monarchy was overthrown twice. The President interceded and reinstalled the Queen and Hawaii Sovereignty. The Queen was once arrested for treason and in order to gain her freedom Queen Lili'uokalani had to abdicate the throne to the Americans.

Hawaii was taken from the Hawaiians and the Monarchy. The US won and signed the protocol that provided for Cuban independence and the cession of Puerto Rico and the Marianis Island Group; to include Guam. As one of the outcomes of the Spanish-American War. The Factbook says: "the native Chamorro name for the island "Guahan" (meaning "we have" or "ours") was changed to Guam in the 1898 Treaty of Paris whereby Spain relinquished Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the US. Guam and Puerto Rico are still organized, unincorporated territory of the US with policy relations between Guam and the US under the jurisdiction of the Office of Insular Affairs, US Department of the Interior."

(COMMENT)
.
There is one point that really need stressed, I think. The concepts of the International Community taking the stance that a territorial change "Is NOT Recognized" is absolute nonsense. It is political showmanship, but not representative of reality.

Whether or not the International Community recognizes, or not, the changes of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip, the changes are in place and and being enforced.

Golan Heights (9/2014): The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) shot down a Syrian Sukhoi SU-30 fighter after it crossed into the Air Defense Zone and flew over the Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) effectively observes the new territorial status.

The West Bank was occupied then annexed by Jordan (4/1950); as a result of it invasion in 1948. In 1967, Israel established effective control over all of the West Bank after Jordan's failure to provide for an adequate defense. In June 1988 Jordan cuts all ties with the West Bank, abandoning the territory (Terra Nullis) to the hands of the Israelis.

Jerusalem is what is. The reality is:

​

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was an unincorporated dependent territory of Egypt; under the guise of the Center of Palestinian Control by the All Palestine Government (APG). In 1959 the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG and the Gaza Strip became an open Military Governorship the same - unincorporated dependent territory of Egypt. In 1967, Israel established effective control over the Gaza Strip, filling-in Government as the Egyptian forces were being pursued.
​

No matter what the political lip-service says --- placed on the concept of recognition, the fact that the International Community recognizes the changes in Laws in crossing from one jurisdiction to another, makes it sound rather child like.

(JOKING)

No, for sure not joking. The Crimea will never be released by the Russians, China will never release Tibet, and US will never give Hawaii back the the Hawaiian Monarchy, and it is highly unlikely that Puerto Rico will ever revert back to Spain.

So it is: -----

The more the International Community play these ridiculous games with the Arab Palestinians, the more that we give them false hope in accomplishing there goals.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As usual, it is ever characteristic for the ArabPalestinians to be the victim of some egregious allegation. (There were 8 million victims in the naked Palestine. This is one of their stories.)

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations. The Armistice Line were a negotiated outcome based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). The principle parties to the conflict were Israel and the Arab League nations with adjacent boundaries. The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties. The Armistice Commission intended the agreements to serve only for an interim period. The Agreements would be dissolved IF and WHEN the peace treaties were established.

Most respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.

It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.

 

[Contumacious]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As usual, it is ever characteristic for the ArabPalestinians to be the victim of some egregious allegation. (There were 8 million victims in the naked Palestine. This is one of their stories.)

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations. The Armistice Line were a negotiated outcome based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). The principle parties to the conflict were Israel and the Arab League nations with adjacent boundaries. The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties. The Armistice Commission intended the agreements to serve only for an interim period. The Agreements would be dissolved IF and WHEN the peace treaties were established.

Most respectfully,
R

Israel has no right to exist in Palestine.

None.

Over and out.

.

 

[Phoenall]

A Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish can only return to Palestine. Other countries are not Palestine. A large part of Palestine was invaded by the European Zionists so they are prevented from returning by said Europeans.

Like the Catholics cant return to their origins because their originating nation does not want them

 

[Phoenall]

The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.

Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As usual, it is ever characteristic for the ArabPalestinians to be the victim of some egregious allegation. (There were 8 million victims in the naked Palestine. This is one of their stories.)

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations. The Armistice Line were a negotiated outcome based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). The principle parties to the conflict were Israel and the Arab League nations with adjacent boundaries. The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties. The Armistice Commission intended the agreements to serve only for an interim period. The Agreements would be dissolved IF and WHEN the peace treaties were established.

Most respectfully,
R

Israel has no right to exist in Palestine.

None.

Over and out.

.

International law of 1922 says you are clueless

 

[Phoenall]

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

How when they dont have the power to do this ?

 

[Phoenall]

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.

It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.

But on their side of the armistice line. And how do you occupy what is yours by law ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.

Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel

I have never said that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

How when they dont have the power to do this ?

That has been my question too.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.

It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.

But on their side of the armistice line. And how do you occupy what is yours by law ?

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. The lines cut through Palestine without defining any countries.

 

[Phoenall]

The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.

Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel

I have never said that.

LIAR you accepted the latest UN resolution that says just this, but it means that the arab muslims will also have to be told what their lands are

 

[Phoenall]

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

How when they dont have the power to do this ?

That has been my question too.

Proving that you are a consummate LIAR every time you say this same thing. There were not 3 areas of occupation as the arab muslims only ever occupied 1, ISRAEL

 

[Phoenall]

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.

It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.

But on their side of the armistice line. And how do you occupy what is yours by law ?

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. The lines cut through Palestine without defining any countries.

Until the treaties were made that turned them into actual mutually acceptable international borders between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt

 

[P F Tinmore]

The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.

Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel

I have never said that.

LIAR you accepted the latest UN resolution that says just this, but it means that the arab muslims will also have to be told what their lands are

Which one was that and what did I say about it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

How when they dont have the power to do this ?

That has been my question too.

Proving that you are a consummate LIAR every time you say this same thing. There were not 3 areas of occupation as the arab muslims only ever occupied 1, ISRAEL

Look in the Armistice Agreements and point out where I am wrong.

 

[MJB12741]

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.

It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.

But on their side of the armistice line. And how do you occupy what is yours by law ?

The Palestinian squatters are occupying Israel's land.

After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...

The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.

How when they dont have the power to do this ?

That has been my question too.

Proving that you are a consummate LIAR every time you say this same thing. There were not 3 areas of occupation as the arab muslims only ever occupied 1, ISRAEL

Look in the Armistice Agreements and point out where I am wrong.

The Palestinian squatters are occupying Israel's land. Time for Israel to stop placating their endless demands & start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!