Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another one of those Arab Palestinian Victim complaints.

You didn't mention that the Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

I did not forget it at all.

BUT REMEMBER! The Armistice Agreements were a temporary solution to the Arab League Aggressor Attack in contravention to Article 1(2) (Self-determination), Article 2(3) (Peaceful Settlement of Disputes), and the Article 2(4) (use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence). And the consequence of such aggressor action is the Internatal Defense and Development under Article 51 (inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack).

The division were a product of the invading Arab Forces, NOT the defender -- Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

At every offer, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.

and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.

And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.

(COMMENT)

They Arab Palestinians declined to participate through the entire Mandate period, and they declined today.

It is who they are... Belligerent, Uncooperative, Abusive and Violent... (BUAV)

Most Respectfully,
R

The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.

 

[Shusha]

The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.

Its not a zero sum game. There can be two winners here.

 

[Phoenall]

• The Treaty set the authorization to for Mandatories to develop citizenship procedures.

All of the Mandated territories, except Palestine, developed their citizenship through their local representatives. Palestine's was written by a foreign power against their will.

That is a violation of the Palestinian's right to self determination without external interference.

NO YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN. That is not even part of the equation.

The Law says that the people have to show self determination and the ability to stand on their own as a nation governed by themselves. The arab muslims had the same rights to proclaim independence at any time from 1922 ON THE LAND GRANTED TO THEM IN PALESTINE FOR THAT PURPOSE. It did not give them the right to steal land from the Jews and set up shop there because their god told them too. It did not give them the right to invade with foriegn armies intent on mass murder, genocide and pillage because the world had told them to back of and leave. It did not give them the right to proclaim that the land was theirs under treaties that never existed and international laws not written until 70 years later.

Now two mandates were developed through external representatives who were given the lands to rule by the same people who gave the lands to the Jews. Proving that you are prepared to lie outrageously to win a point. Look at Syria and Jordan that are both ruled by non Syrian/Jordanian heads of state. Did this violate the Syrian/Jordanian rights to self determination. Or is this you altering reality again because you know the evidence is against you all the way.

Time to enforce the international law you posted last week in regards to no non Jews to be allowed to live in the Jewish national home and no non muslims to be allowed to live in the palestinians national home. This instigated by the arab muslims in 1923 in an attempt at ethnic cleansing of the M.E. legally through international laws.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

At every offer, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.

and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.

And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.

(COMMENT)

They Arab Palestinians declined to participate through the entire Mandate period, and they declined today.

It is who they are... Belligerent, Uncooperative, Abusive and Violent... (BUAV)

Most Respectfully,
R

The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.

No the offer was take it or leave it and did not mention any colonial project. They were given 78% of palestine to play in and kill each other to their hearts content, but wanted the world as decreed by their god.

REMEMBER THAT................DECREED BY THEIR GOD

They decided that violence was the answer and have paid a heavy price ever since. So if they want to commit suicide why should we stop them, they want to die so time to say goodbye. BUT DONT BLAME THE JEWS FOR THE MORONS SELF DETERMINATION IN WIPING THEMSELVES OUT

 

[Phoenall]

The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.

Its not a zero sum game. There can be two winners here.

Which is why the LoN partitioned palestine and used the Jordan as a natural border. Imagine a world were Jordan has access to Israel's ports and can trade with anyone they want, there could only ever be winners

 

[Phoenall]

It was never their country to defend. You keep saying that, but the Arab Palestinians did not exercise their sovereignty over any territory pre-1988 Declaration of Independence by the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People.

You are back to Israeli talking points again.

That preventing the Palestinians from exercise their sovereignty at the point of a gun is a violation of their rights.

And you are back to telling lies as you fail to show just how they are Israeli talking points and then compound it by claiming it was done with a gun at their heads.
If that was the case why were they allowed to disagree and deny the mandate. And what rights were violated, something you have repeatedly refused to detail in 2 years of asking. What lands did they have actual legally recognised sovereignty over from 1917 to 1999 ?

 

[Phoenall]

I have produced this treaty and you ignore it because it leaves out Israel, gaza, west bank and Jerusalem

The rules of occupation state that an occupying power does not acquire sovereignty.

LINK ?

 

[Phoenall]

The act of ensuring a transfer of citizenship from the ceding State to the Mandate did not create a State.

Nobody became the citizens of the Mandate.

WRONG as the evidence shows they became citizens of the British mandate of palestine.

Is this clear enough for you, a passport pre 1988 that says BRITISH PALESTINE as required under the citizenship order. Why do you deny the truth when you know it will be thrown in your face ?

 

[Phoenall]

The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.

Link?

The UN charter that says " ALL PEOPLES " which includes the Jews who were legal citizens of palestine ( mandate )

 

[Phoenall]

Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.

It did not need to as that was not its purpose, but the LoN mandate did and that was its purpose

 

[Phoenall]

The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.

Link?

Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!

Please provide a link to that.

The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.

The UN mentions ALL PEOPLES in its charter. In the resolution you use and link to it mentions certain peoples as examples only.


Now how about a LINK to prove your obviously false claim ?

 

[Phoenall]

Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.

Exactly. Then it could not have created a legal condition which restricted rights of one of the two peoples.

There weren't two peoples only the Palestinians.

Where does it say that, it has to be precise in its wording or you are manipulating and twisting meanings again

 

[Phoenall]

Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.

Neither does it even mention Palestine at all.

It didn't mention Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, or Iraq either.

Do you have a point?

Yes it proves that you are LYING AGAIN and putting in words that never existed. Time to clean up your act and only use what is available on your links

 

[Phoenall]

The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.

Link?

Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!

Please provide a link to that.

The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.

Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?

It did and it flopped.

Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security Council.

Yes it did and you have been given the evidence many many many times over, So why do you deny the truth , and the Jews their rights under international law ?

 

[Phoenall]

Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!

Please provide a link to that.

The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.

Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?

It did and it flopped.

Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security Council.

Hasn't that been addressed for you multiple times now?

Rhetorical question as the obvious answer is yes. Really, dear, you spam multiple threads with the same cutting and pasting.

Look it up for yourself.

You make the claim you need to prove it. A refusal or denial shows that you are LYING and have lost the point

 

[Phoenall]

The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.

Do you even hear yourself talk? UNGA 273(III).

Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.

HOW produce the evidence of your claim or admit you are just spreading LIES and PROPAGANDA

 

[Phoenall]

Well, there are now. Isn't this debate futile?

It is futile. Because Tinmore's end game is the destruction of the State of Israel. And that is never going to happen.

It's odd because while Tinmore will deny the precepts of the Hamas charter, he lives and breathes those very precepts.

Israel occupies Palestine. It is not my thing. It is not a Hamas thing. It is an Israel thing.

How can Israeloccupy what is theirs by international law in the first place. What is your evidence to show that the LoNdid not give 78% of palestine to the arab muslims and 22% to the Jews for their national homes ?

 

[Phoenall]

And what legal instrument or precedent are you using to claim that Palestine can't be divided into two distinct nations?

Maybe it could but it would have to be approved by the majority of the people.

Under what law is this the case, can you cite any instance were the elected government has went to the people and demanded they all vote on a particular policy.

Is this another of your failed attempts at introducing laws for the Jews only so they will always lose ?

 

[Phoenall]

When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?

Israeli talking point.

It is the people not a government that has the right to self determination.

NO HISTORICAL FACT THAT YOU DONT WANT TO SEE POSTED. IT WAS ISRAEL AND SO THE SOVEREIGNTY PASSED TO THEM UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

WHY IS IT THAT INTERNATIONAL LAWS ACT IN ISREAL'S FAVOUR MORE THAN THEY DO IN THE ARAB MUSLIMS FAVOUR ?