Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Shusha]

You say that the Jews were given Palestine for the Jewish National Home.

I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The question of this thread is why some believe that the Jewish people -- of all the people given this opportunity at that time and in that place -- have fewer rights than the others under identical circumstances.

But I would be most interested in your answers to your own questions:

Why did the UN propose to divide the territory?

Why did the Zionists accept this division?

Why is the West Bank and Gaza still called occupied Palestinian territory?

And I'll ask another one: Is Israel considered occupied Palestinian territory and if yes, why?

And just to show I'm playing fair, I'll answer the questions myself: To placate the Arabs and end the violence (land for peace). To placate the Arabs and end the violence (land for peace). Its largely an egregious misapplication of law to placate the Arabs and end the violence (land for peace).

 

[montelatici]

No other native people were removed/killed to make room for people living somewhere else, in this case, another continent.

 

[Phoenall]

And that is why you are always wrong because you believe that it is the UN that has to create Israel

It was the first sentence in the earlier propaganda piece that was posted.

Posted by who, as you have been told that this is the islamonazi POV and not team Israel's. The UN does not have that amount of power, no matter what the islamonazi's claim and so cant create nations. But they can destroy them at a seconds notice, and the way islam is going they will be looking to make an example of one of them.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES

The facts on the ground prove my point. Nothing in Resolution 181 really happened. The UN created nothing.

Your continued whining about Resolution 181 is pointless. Why don't you write a strongly worded email (and be sure to include multiple references to The Zionists™ or alternately The Zionist Entity™) to the UN and express your displeasure. Tell them you demand satisfaction.

Resolution 181 was DOA. What is there to complain about?

WRONG it was only DOA in the arab muslims eyes as they thought their refusal would squash it. The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181.

READ THE FULL DETAILS IN THE UN ARCHIVES AND NOT THE ISLAMONAZI VERSIONS OF EVENTS

 

[Phoenall]

And that is why you are always wrong because you believe that it is the UN that has to create Israel

It was the first sentence in the earlier propaganda piece that was posted.

Everything that I post when I disprove your claims, the links you keep asking for and then ignoring because they dont say what you want to see. All the details that you say is Israeli talking points or Israeli propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

No other native people were removed/killed to make room for people living somewhere else, in this case, another continent.

Apart from the Americas, India, Africa and Australia, but then this was done by the Catholic church so was not the same

 

[P F Tinmore]

The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181.

Could you quote that passage?

 

[MJB12741]

No other native people were removed/killed to make room for people living somewhere else, in this case, another continent.

Have you gone totally bonkers? All Muslim countries are stolen countries conquered by force whereby the "native people" were forced to convert, leave or be killed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.

Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.

 

[Hollie]

I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.

Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.

As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.

The state of Israel was the result of the Jewish people's ability to establish self-determination and effectively control a border in spite of aggression on the part of The Islamist Entity™. The point of a gun you rattle on about was the point of the gun from The Islamist Entity™ that sought to deny the Jew people a sovereign State.

The Islamist Entity™ occupying the former British Mandate was never able to establish either a functioning government or find the ability to exercise self-determination. That's not surprising as we have Islamist history to consult which delineates thst history as one of feudal warlords and tribal societies constantly at war.

 

[Shusha]

I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.

Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.

The "right" to sovereignty may indeed rest with the people in international law (I'm not convinced that is strictly true, but I'm not going to argue with you about it since we agree in principle.) But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty. There was the potential for sovereignty, but no actual sovereignty.

But all this is going off on a rather silly tangent rather than addressing the meat of my post -- which was to answer the questions you, yourself, posed and to address the negation and violation of the rights of the Jewish people to sovereignty just the same as all the others.

Also, what Hollie said.

 

[Phoenall]

The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181.

Could you quote that passage?

Do you mean the one posted many times in the past that you totally ignore because it destroyed your POV.

It was an either/or state of affairs and the arab muslims being greedy decided that it did not mean what it said and so denied the resolution

 

[Phoenall]

I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.

Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.

It does not say that in the treaty of Lausanne does it, that is the twisted interpretation by an islamonazi propagandist. It says that they would become citizens of the mandatory.

What rights were those then, as they were set down in 181 and the arab muslims have been in breach of them ever since.

That is why the arab muslims were ignored and barred from having guns

Wasnt this what the arab muslims did in the west bank, Jerusalem and gaza against the UN charter, Geneva conventions and IHL.

SO WHY ARE YOU ONLY GETTING ALL HOT AND BOTHERED ABOUT WHAT THE JEWS MIGHT HAVE DONE AND NOT WHAT THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID DO.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It says that they would become citizens of the mandatory.

Could you quote that passage?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181.

Could you quote that passage?

Do you mean the one posted many times in the past that you totally ignore because it destroyed your POV.

It was an either/or state of affairs and the arab muslims being greedy decided that it did not mean what it said and so denied the resolution

Your usual duck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.

Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.

That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.

 

[Hollie]

But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.

Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.

That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.

So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.

So there's no issue.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.

Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.

That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.

So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.

So there's no issue.

The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.

 

[Hollie]

But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.

Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.

That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.

So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.

So there's no issue.

The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.

Nice dodge™

As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.

Your suggestion is "they" did it in your invented "country of Pal'istan". There was no such place. The geographic area of Pal'istan was an area ceded by the Ottomans to the British Mandate.

The Jewish people succeeded in self-governance and sovereignty. The Arabs-Moslems could not and still can not.

Nothing was taken away from the Arab-Moslem squatters.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.

Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.

That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.

So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.

So there's no issue.

The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.

Nice dodge™

As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.

Your suggestion is "they" did it in your invented "country of Pal'istan". There was no such place. The geographic area of Pal'istan was an area ceded by the Ottomans to the British Mandate.

The Jewish people succeeded in self-governance and sovereignty. The Arabs-Moslems could not and still can not.

Nothing was taken away from the Arab-Moslem squatters.

Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. It was populated by a people who had legal citizenship.

You can throw all the Israeli talking points you like. It changes nothing.