Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

Israel did not annex territory on the basis of "occupation."

Then how did Israel "annex" its territory?

Through international law when the arab muslims activated their free determination and lost the civil war when they tried to take over Jordan. The land became ownerless for that short period of time and Israel claimed it as theirs.

 

[Phoenall]

Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.

You're joking, right?

All of the institutions created by the Palestinians for self determination were shut down by Britain. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

You need to read up.

NO YOU DO as they were not elements of free determination but elements of violence, intimidation and terrorism. Name one institution that was created that was an element of free determination ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is impossible.

The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.

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

Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.

(COMMENT)

UNGA 273 (III) only has one decision in it; admission. Are you twisting something here?

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course he is. He is going to try to claim that since Israel doesn't abide by the Charter, she is in violation of 273.

Edited to add that Israel can't be in violation of the 273 since 273 is not a conditional two-party agreement but a unilateral pronouncement of one party to the other.

UNITED NATIONS
General Assembly

A/RES/273 (III)

11 May 1949

------------------------------------------------------------------------

273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

Israel violates the conditions for admittance into UN​

Actually it put it in place if you read the full terms of the "right of return ". It does not state all arab muslims only those PREPARED TO ACCEPT THEY MUST LIVE IN PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBOURS AND ACT IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE. 20% OF ISREAL'S CITIZENS ARE ARAB MUSLIMS. HOW MANY JEWS ARE PALESTINIAN CITIZENS ?


Your use of hate sites as evidence is noted

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, you are attempting to make an implication that some group of people can declare some determination.

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.

(COMMENT)

If the people are going to make a determination, then they must have some means to carry it out. But in this case, there was no determination made, and no means to extend sovereignty. Thus, if anyone stopped the right of the Arab Palestinians, it was the Arab Palestinians themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were stopped by the British. It is clear in the correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation to London and the British Colonial Office. To wit:

The Palestinian request in 1922:

"Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."

The Colonial Office's answer:

"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish colony in Palestine. So Rocco, stop making absurd assertions that have no basis in historical fact.

BULLSHIT it clearly states that it is the decision of the LoN

 

[Phoenall]

Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.

You're joking, right?

All of the institutions created by the Palestinians for self determination were shut down by Britain. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

You need to read up.

I blame the Jews™. Oh, and the British now, too.

They were in cahoots.

Who makes them then as I have never seen one..............

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

273 (III) reads:

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.


There is nothing conditional about this statement. It is a direct and clear statement. There is no way for Israel to violate a statement which says, "The GA decides to admit Israel to membership in the UN."

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
​

BTW, 11 December 1948 is Resolution 194.

And as you have been shown the right of return was never ratified because the arab muslims would have to give up Mecca and Medina to the Jews. So how are they in breach of a law that never existed ?

 

[Phoenall]

The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish (National Home) in Palestine.

Ah. No. The British would not endorse a Palestinian national self-determination which denied Jewish national self-determination. This did not prevent the Palestinians from asserting a self-determination in conjunction with Jewish national self-determination.

Or moving the the portion of palestine granted to them for that very purpose, thus freeing the M.E. from endless wars and making it prosperous for all

 

[Phoenall]

The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish (National Home) in Palestine.

Ah. No. The British would not endorse a Palestinian national self-determination which denied Jewish national self-determination. This did not prevent the Palestinians from asserting a self-determination in conjunction with Jewish national self-determination.

Yes it did. Anything and everything Palestinian was shut down.

Everything and anything illegal or contrary to the LoN mandate was shut down, get it right. And this was mostly arab muslim extremist groups, terror cells and violent gangs

 

[Phoenall]

the citizenry of the territory to which the Mandate applied, rejected, on at least three occasions prior to 1924, the opportunity to participate in Article 22(2)

Indeed, they consistently refused to sign onto the colonial project.

So proving that they were never stopped from showing free determination or that any of their rights were violated.

Guess you lose again because you are inconsistent in your rants and dont look at the evidence

 

[Phoenall]

when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.

Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.

Nor was the mandate of palestine. But the other mandates were under military control with the British being centred on Jerusalem and the French in Damascus

 

[Phoenall]

But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.

Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.

The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.

The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.

No as there was no actual colonial project outside of the fantasy world of the islamonazi stooges and conspiracy loons to justify the arab muslim violence and terrorism. Find one mention in any allied correspondence of the time of a colonial project, something of this magnitude would be hard to cover up or hide for so long

 

[Phoenall]

It is only by due diligence that the Colonial Office even bothered to ask more than once (a half-dozen times or more).

"Colonial Office" is the key.

As in the Government department to oversee the day to day running of the overseas branches of the government . Like the mandate of palestine or the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom


Now called the Foreign Office

 

[Phoenall]

Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."

Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.

Once again with your islamonazi propaganda talking points that have no basis in fact

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the Mandates were under the same type of administration, whether that have been the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration, the Mandate A type Administration and government, or the post-1948-49 Arab League invasion and occupation.

when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.

Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.

(COMMENT)

Remember, when the 1949 Armistice kicked-in, the Jordanians (Arab League) occupied the West Bank and the Egyptian (Arab League) occupied the Gaza Strip. That remained until 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

Because it didnt as the land was not occupied by the arab league illegally

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an independent determination made by the Arab Palestinians.

But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.

Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.

The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.

The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.

(COMMENT)

No where in the Covenant do the Authors of the decision to promote the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home, who happen to be the same Authors of the Covenant, draw the same connection that you make here. In fact, there is no conflict. That is just Arab Political soup to further their agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a conflict. You just can't see it through your Israel colored glasses.

And you cant see that it is one of arab muslim making because of your islamonazi stooge glassses

 

[Phoenall]

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.

The palestinians being the Jews of course ?

 

[Phoenall]

I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians.

How many minutes has Palestine not been under occupation since 1917?

As in palesti8ne the Jewish area, palestine the Jordanian area or the non existent nation of palestine ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This "CAN'T DO" attitude is very prevalent in the Arab Palestinian world.

Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."

Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.

(COMMENT)

I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians. The greater security countermeasures and barriers are all 21st Century implementations.

The Arab Palestinians wasted 33 years of time when the stricter 21st Century countermeasures were not in place. But the Arab Palestinians were focused on strictly violence.

As violence increased, the need to develpo more stringent security measures increased. That is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to pursue violence as opposed to positive development projects.

Most Respectfully,
R

Blah, blah, blah, more Israeli talking points.

Again you claim that historical reality is Israeli talking points because you have no valid argument to refute them.

Are yoiu denying that the arab muslims live to be violent and create violence at the drop of a hat rather than find a productive means of settling disputes that does not also say because it is all mine or because I say so

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Yes you can if you read the laws governing occupied territories, and this is real laws not red cross school lessons

 

[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 only offer was to act like intelligent adults and agree to talk sensibly about what should be done with the former Ottoman lands. The arab muslims did not want to be seen as intelligent adults it seems, but petulant spoilt children