Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[montelatici]

monty,

You take one man's perspective and then try to re-interpret the actual events.

San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

• The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
• Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.​

This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

First Sentence of the Mandate for Palestine (1922)

• Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,​

The Treaty of Lausanne

Relative to Rights and Title to Allied Powers

• ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

SECTION VII.
SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
ARTICLE 94. Treaty of Sevres

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

ARTICLE 97.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.

ARTICLE 132.

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

• ARTICLE 30.

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

While the Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918) amounted to an Unconditional Surrender, the Armistice was replaced by the Treaty of Sevres.

WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
LAST UPDATED: 7-20-1998 See Article History

Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

The Palestine Police during the British Mandate

Palestine 1947 Side-affects and paradoxes were the main forces shaping Britain's administration of Palestine.

The initial phase between 1917 and 1920, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was an incidental side affect of World War 1 middle-eastern military campaigns.

The Palestine Police was born when civil administration replaced military administration in 1920 but for much of its history, the British section of the Palestine police received army training.​

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​

All the above are quoted excerpts from the various sources provided by the links. They are not quoted in their entirety do to their size. Only the salient points are provided; answering the specific questions.

(∑)

There was a primary and specific intent that dates back to a time before the Mandate. That intent, expressed over and over again, was the: "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The difference here is that, the intent is relative to the Jewish people. There is no equivalent to this prior to the 1988 acknowledgement of the Palestinians Declaration of Independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

• Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
• Application for Admission by the State of Palestine (23 September 2011)
• Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (15 December 1988)
• Palestinian National Council Declaration of Independence (November 14, 1988)
​

The Arab Palestinians are always attempting to grab more, or to imply more than is theirs or there to be had. In this case, It is what it is. There is a clear chain for you to follow pertaining to the Jewish People and the establishment of Israel. They are links in the chain that specifically state: "Jewish National Home" and the "State of Israel." There is no interpretation required. That is because the Jewish People at that time were the principle interests. Similarly, when it spoke about Jordan, it clearly stated in an unambiguous form, Jordan. But there is no unambiguous form specifically addressing the Arabs of Palestine in terms of sovereignty or establishment beyond those that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians. To reject political offers that inadvertently undermines the Arab Palestinian self interests is their trademark; there exclusive brand. They need not cry about it now.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The phrase "inhabited by peoples" is "unambiguous", it is for these people (inhabiting Palestine) that the territories were to be held in trust for and the people that were to be protected under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Jews were in Europe, and were not the inhabitants.

Let me refresh your memory:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

So your racism and extreme partisanship is not blinding you, it is the fact that you are just plain dimwitted. You can neither dazzle us with brilliance nor baffle us with your bullshit. Give it up, writing more and more bullshit doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.

When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.

Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.

 

[Shusha]

I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.

When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.

Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.

Irrelevant. We are discussing Israels de jure existence not Palestine's.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.

When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.

Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.

Irrelevant. We are discussing Israels de jure existence not Palestine's.

Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.

 

[MJB12741]

I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.

When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.

Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.

Irrelevant. We are discussing Israels de jure existence not Palestine's.

Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.

HUH??? Indigenous Palestinians were Jews in the territory of Palestine. Long before any Muslim invaders.

 

[Shusha]

Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.

Okay so your new claim is that Israel has no legal status, not because she failed to fulfill the requirements, but because another State was already in existence on that territory.

Again, support your claim. When did "Palestine" come into existence as a State? What was its permanent population? What was its defined territory? What demonstrated their effective control over that territory? What was its government? Where was the seat of government? Which persons occupied the government positions? What evidence do you have that Palestine had the capability of entering into agreements with other States? What legal instruments brought about Palestine's Statehood?

When you are finished with all that, you will also have to provide arguments to prove that Israel is legally prohibited from seceding from "Palestine", by developing her own Statehood.

 

[montelatici]

I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.

When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.

Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.

Irrelevant. We are discussing Israels de jure existence not Palestine's.

Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.

HUH??? Indigenous Palestinians were Jews in the territory of Palestine. Long before any Muslim invaders.

Indigenous Palestinians converted to Christianity when Christianity became the state religion of Rome in 380 AD, long before Muslim rulers arrived. Christians were still a majority when the Crusaders conquered Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

In this particular case, I was addressing your compatriot, not specifically your post which I address already.

And in most cases, it serves no useful purpose to refuted your post more than once, since you will just ignore the facts anyway.

So how does all that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

The facts, over the last century is a classic case of the Arab Palestinians attempting to twist the fact, round-up sympathy, play on the emotions and advocate for violence in order to pretend they are recovering something that was never theirs to begin with.

Israel, responding to the

The occupier is required by Article 43 of the Hague Regulations to ‘take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country’.11 This obligation is also reflected in Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states: ‘[t]he Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfill its obligations . . . to maintain the orderly government of the Territory . . .’.


Today, the reality is that Israel is acting in the best interest of regional security and its protection and preservation of its culture, its citizenry and its recognition as a nation state. It is owed many time the remuneration, reparations, damages, compensation and restitution gross and systematic violations of humanitarian law, conduct of terrorism, and the promotion of violence and acts of aggression.

​

The Hostile Arab Palestinians, refuses to make peace, incite terrorism and war, conduct such propaganda operations to poison the lines of main stream media, and promote generational transmission of hatred. Since early 1948, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has been involved in varying degrees of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. Over the span of ≈ seven decades, the HoAP hijacked airliners, shot-up airports, pirated ships, massacred unarmed Olympians, targeted schools - beaches - restaurants - bus stops and ambushed civilian vehicles; not to mention kidnapped and murder others.

Now, not that this is not bad enough, the HoAP, openly supported by the general public for these major crimes, by also honored, and promoted an ever increasing air of violence. After a half century of this violence, Israel began to ratchet security countermeasures to address the prevention and neutralization of these heinous criminal behaviors. Gradually, the psychopathic nature the general Arab Palestinian population uncloaked itself and openly rallied in support of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters --- demonstrating the inability to appreciate the sanctity of life.

There is so much more I could write on the nature of the chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior of the Arab Palestinian. Contrary to popular belief, Arab Palestinian psychopaths are not considered to be mentally ill --- but --- exist more on the order of a culture that is predisposed to Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD). They are exceptionally dangerous.

Key traits of the psychopath include the tendency to manipulation, intimidation, and move to exert control over others, in order to satisfy their own selfish desires (personal, economic and political):

• A disregard for laws and social mores,
• A disregard for the rights of others,
• A failure to feel remorse or guilt,
• A tendency to display violent behavior,
​

The behavior of an Arab Palestinian is consistent with that of a person without any future; because they are parasitic in nature. They have not true ability to assess the history from which they came. They are unable to put Arab Palestinians in contrast with other populations and are not capable of nation building.

They are what they are.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Your hate and racism are just too much for you, all you can do is attempt to baffle people far more clever than you with bullshit. It doesn't work, bullshitter.

But this statement of yours poignantly points to where you get your ideas:

"The behavior of an Arab Palestinian is consistent with that of a person without any future; because they are parasitic in nature."

Hitler said just about the same thing about Jews in Mein Kampf. Congratulations, we know where you are coming from.

 

[Shusha]

The Arab Palestinians, to this day, fall short of the Montevideo requirements. As Rocco points out, the most egregious of this is the lack of capacity to enter into agreements with other States and to adopt the very first principle of Statehood -- which is the principle of non-violent relationships with its fellow States.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.

Okay so your new claim is that Israel has no legal status, not because she failed to fulfill the requirements, but because another State was already in existence on that territory.

Again, support your claim. When did "Palestine" come into existence as a State? What was its permanent population? What was its defined territory? What demonstrated their effective control over that territory? What was its government? Where was the seat of government? Which persons occupied the government positions? What evidence do you have that Palestine had the capability of entering into agreements with other States? What legal instruments brought about Palestine's Statehood?

When you are finished with all that, you will also have to provide arguments to prove that Israel is legally prohibited from seceding from "Palestine", by developing her own Statehood.

WOW, that reads like an Israeli propaganda sheet.

Do you have a link to that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfill its obligations

Like bulldozing homes to make room for illegal settlements?

I don't think settler colonialism is an obligation.

 

[Shusha]

WOW, that reads like an Israeli propaganda sheet.

Do you have a link to that?

A link to what? I am addressing your claims.

You stated: Israel has no legal status.

I replied: Present your arguments.

You presented Montevideo as the criteria used for determining whether or not Israel (and now also Palestine) had the pre-conditions necessary to assert a claim to Statehood.

I'm asking questions. I'm asking you to present your argument. How the hell can a request for information be "propaganda" or necessitate a link? Present your argument or admit you have none.

 

[jillian]

The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire) to Islam, but they remained the same people.

Lets just consider documented facts. Fair enough?

Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks

The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​

The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?

aaaannnnidddd....here come the anti-semite scum.

 

[P F Tinmore]

WOW, that reads like an Israeli propaganda sheet.

Do you have a link to that?

A link to what? I am addressing your claims.

You stated: Israel has no legal status.

I replied: Present your arguments.

You presented Montevideo as the criteria used for determining whether or not Israel (and now also Palestine) had the pre-conditions necessary to assert a claim to Statehood.

I'm asking questions. I'm asking you to present your argument. How the hell can a request for information be "propaganda" or necessitate a link? Present your argument or admit you have none.

Palestine had everything except that denied by illegal external interference. Illegal actions against Palestinians by foreigners do not negate their rights.

 

[Shusha]

You are utterly failing to support your claim with reasoned arguments. You are utterly failing to even define your claim adequately.

To remind: the claim on the table is "Israel has no legal (de jure) status".

You initially argued the claim, quite reasonably, by introducing the Montevideo Convention which is one (not the only, but one) expression of customary international law with respect to the conditions necessary in order to consider any territory a State (population, territory, government, capacity/recognition).

Now you are shifting your argument. You are introducing a new idea -- which is, that whether Israel meets the criteria YOU presented (Montevideo) is not relevant after all, and the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).

I don't care what you argue. But you have to pick your goal posts and plant them. And then stick with them. So first, decide whether you are arguing that Israel has no legal status or whether you are arguing that (regardless of Israel's status), "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim.

 

[P F Tinmore]

the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).

Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.

And you argue about which one is legitimate.

 

[montelatici]

The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire) to Islam, but they remained the same people.

Lets just consider documented facts. Fair enough?

Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks

The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​

The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?

aaaannnnidddd....here come the anti-semite scum.

Stating fact has become antisemitic.

 

[Shusha]

the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).

Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.

And you argue about which one is legitimate.

You are the one presenting a claim. You have yet to provide a cohesive, reasonable argument to support that claim.

Now you are presenting another claim. That is: "Palestine has been a State since 1924". Defend that claim.

 

[P F Tinmore]

the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).

Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.

And you argue about which one is legitimate.

You are the one presenting a claim. You have yet to provide a cohesive, reasonable argument to support that claim.

Now you are presenting another claim. That is: "Palestine has been a State since 1924". Defend that claim.

That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?