Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Shusha]

Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.

So you keep asserting. Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.

Then stop trying to negate Israeli sovereignty.

Israel's so called sovereignty is what we are debating.

 

[Shusha]

Israel never had any land to cede.

On the contrary, as you have demonstrated Palestine (now named Israel) became a State in 1924. The only government since the British removed their trust, has been the Israeli government. Therefore, all the land is Israeli land. Keep up.

 

[Shusha]

Israel's so called sovereignty is what we are debating.

And you have yet to provide even a single reasonable argument against Israel's sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

Israel never had any land to cede.

If this is your argument, you need to address my points 2 and 3. Not 6.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.

So you keep asserting. Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne. Britain occupied Palestine before the Treaty of Lausanne and continued to occupy it until 1948. The UN armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation that lasted until 1967 when Israel occupied all of Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel never had any land to cede.

If this is your argument, you need to address my points 2 and 3. Not 6.

What is there to argue if Israel has no land?

 

[P F Tinmore]

2. Territory under the sovereignty of the British Mandate,

The British Mandate had no sovereignty.

You need to rewrite your questions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel's so called sovereignty is what we are debating.

And you have yet to provide even a single reasonable argument against Israel's sovereignty.

You have not offered anything for it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel never had any land to cede.

On the contrary, as you have demonstrated Palestine (now named Israel) became a State in 1924. The only government since the British removed their trust, has been the Israeli government. Therefore, all the land is Israeli land. Keep up.

So, when did Palestine cede land to Israel?

Documents please.

 

[Hollie]

Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.

So you keep asserting. Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne. Britain occupied Palestine before the Treaty of Lausanne and continued to occupy it until 1948. The UN armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation that lasted until 1967 when Israel occupied all of Palestine.

"I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne."

So... why is it that your mythical "country of Pal'istan" exists only in your lurid fantasies?

 

[Shusha]

...when Israel occupied all of Palestine.

Israel IS all of Palestine. The only government to show up and run the place since the British started the Mandate. The only State which has ever existed there. You can call it "Palestine" if you wish -- but its the government put in place by the Jewish people for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Homeland.

 

[Shusha]

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne.

You most certainly have not. You have claimed it. But have absolutely no supporting argument to make it so.

 

[Shusha]

What is there to argue if Israel has no land?

Don't be silly. Of course Israel has land.

You are trying to prove that her possession of land is not legal. And not especially doing a good job of it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What is there to argue if Israel has no land?

Don't be silly. Of course Israel has land.

You are trying to prove that her possession of land is not legal. And not especially doing a good job of it.

I have already asked you that and you ducked the question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne.

You most certainly have not. You have claimed it. But have absolutely no supporting argument to make it so.

I did to. You never responded to that post.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne.

You most certainly have not. You have claimed it. But have absolutely no supporting argument to make it so.

I did to. You never responded to that post.

These statements that Israel "has no land" and that "Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne" are absolutely ridiculous. Tinmore could perhaps teach a course in philosophy, but he has no business posting on a Board about the real situation in the Middle East.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Interesting concept; but in practice, not entirely true.

Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)

You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.

(COMMENT)

Individual sovereignty (governing one's self) is in isolation. Then extending that outward --- as you combine sovereign entities, you begin forming families, villages, townships, cities, states and nations. You sort-of see this when we say: The International Community. And while this allows people (individuals) to agree on the formation of government that best represents their interests through the establishment of laws and practices, we each agree to contribute some of our sovereignty to benefit the whole.

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real. IT is very much like when you learned in science that F=MA. We all know that it is true (the right answer on many'a'test) if we think of an idealized environment were there is no friction --- no gravity or other bodies also using their F=MA because they are free as well.

When we speak of state sovereignty, we are no longer speaking in terms of the condition in which the individual sovereignty replaces the collective sovereignty of the people. If that were the case, then we would be describing a condition brought about by the absence of governmental authority; where each sovereign individual has they right to do their own bidding (Anarchy). Once governments are formed, we are now talking about an invention of the people (government); an entity where the people have collectively provided a piece of their sovereignty to exercise on their behalf. A President, King, Dictator is not the leader unless some powerful aspect of the population follows them; then it is just a matter of strength and numbers.

When we talk about sovereignty in these discussions, we are well past that basic idea --- and are now into the realm where the state governments are establishing territorial control in the name of the people which gave them power. That not necessarily the people of the territory in which the government is gaining control over.

The idea of: "You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it." is actually looking at it backwards. Israel is a sovereignty because the people of Israel say it is sovereign. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are not sovereign because the people have not contributed to form a sovereign entity. Thus, absent a uniform sovereign entity, they are the lawless brought about by political disorder and instability. What is distinctive about this particular environment is the fact that the Arab Palestinian has collectively decided not to pursue the building of a nation, but instead to pursue a course of violence against a people that have decided to pursue a course of national development.

Never trust an Arab Palestinian that complains that your progress and development is unlawful and illegal because they did not approve it. The Arab Palestinian, in mid-1949, had the same starting point as the Israelis, with essentially the same resources and more (they had regional allies to help them). There was none of the security barriers you see today. The Arab Palestinians created the conditions that brought about today; self-determination in a negative direction of their choosing. Whereas, the Israelis took a different course of action. You can be the judge of which was better.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.

The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Here again, this is what I'm talking about.

The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.

The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.

(COMMENT)

The Arab League (contributions from multiple sources) and the Arab Palestinians had enough money and resources to mount a full-on military assault and incursion across their borders in contravention with the the Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

Arab Participants in the
1949 Attack and War on Israel
From Wikipedia​

Human Development Rating:
2015 Human Development Report

Arab League

• 
  Egypt
  • Ranked 108th
• 
  Jordan
  • Ranked 80th
• 
  Iraq
  • Ranked 121st
• 
  Syria
  • Ranked 134th
• 
  Lebanon
  • Ranked 67th
• 
  Saudi Arabia
  • Ranked 39th
• 
  Yemen
  • Ranked 160th
• 
  Pakistan
  • Ranked 147th
• 
  Sudan
  • Ranked 167th

Of course Israel Ranked 18th; compared to [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Holy_War'] State of Palestine, which Ranked 113th. We do not really know if it is reasonable to assume that [/URL][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Holy_War'] State of Palestine could have been expected to development more than [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan']Jordan; even if would discount the Arab Palestinian (Fatah Fedayeen) insurgency of the late 1960s and the early 1970s. But what it does indicate is that the Arab Palestinian is now and has been in the past (even before the 1988 Declaration of Independence) prone to violence of the first means to resolve a dispute.[/URL][/URL]

While start-up cost are something important, it should be remembered that in comparative analysis, it is the business sense and the drive to accomplishment that are the most difficult to muster of all intangible assets.

Most Respectfully,
R