Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The US, and especially the EU, evaluate Terrorist Threats, not by religion, not by their manner of dress, and not necessarily on the matter of political following. The US and the EU (and the UK and Russian Federation for that matter) "most often" but not entirely the consider hostile opponent that unlawfully use force and violence against critical interests for the express purpose of projection intimidation or coercion.

Most Often, the established pattern of generally unacceptable tactics and behaviors places the hostile opponent in the consideration for terrorism. Just as the self-determination and announcement of ones organization is a militant movements perceived as an "existentially threat" to the West and its allies (and the Russian Federation, political/economic trading partners and and Far East/Pacific Rim for that matter). Self proclaimed activities that have identified themselves openly (like jihadist or using jihadist methodologies) as a threat and have demonstrated the capacity to act on those threats may also be considered terrorist organizations.

When a hostile organization projects it influence in such a way as to negatively impact and allied government, the civilian population of critical interest, or political or social objective of particular interest; the hostile organization is so categorized.

Not everyone in a Pakol, Tuban, Dastar, Keffiyeh, or Rezza are terrorists. That is a matter of word and deed.

So, these guys, who did much worse, e.g.attacked Russian built schools educating girls, killing thousands of students, were "freedom fighters" and were supported financially by the U.S. until 9/11, but the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are terrorists. Rocco logic.

(COMMENT)

There is no hard and fast rule for who the US is interested in talking to --- or --- who and why the US may give what assistance to where. If the White House wanted you to know the who, what, where, when and why of American diplomatic direction --- they would have sent you to Arlington Hall Station (National Foreign Affairs Training Center). But, as it is, the US National Security Decision Making Process (NSDMP) is a very complex animal. And the US sometimes looks at Terrorism in increments of the Magnitude of the Threat and the Degree of Capability --- as well as the --- exploitation value.

The Designation of HAMAS as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 1997, was was a solution on just the kind of process when the violent resistance characterized by suicide bombings rather than civil disobedience. THEN is become a matter of "who" do you really want to be your ally? (The Israelis or the Arab Palestinians.)

Most Respectively,
R

 

[montelatici]

I don't believe you get the point. When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons. Your ranting about Palestinian terrorism is hypocritical when you ignore other organizations that practice terrorism. I consider Hamas an organization that practices terrorism, but, the use of terrorist tactics on the part of Israel is also terrorism. The killing of thousands of Palestinian civilian, for the most part women and children, is a terrorist act. It is designed to terrorize the Palestinians into acceptance of Israeli oppression. The Contras, for example, were brutal terrorists that killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguan civilians but were classified as freedom fighters. A very poignant example of how razor thin these determinations are made is when you consider that the Kurdish resistance in Turkey, the PKK, are classified as a terrorist organization, while Kurds in neighboring countries are allies and receive our support. Notwithstanding the fact that all Kurdish groups are among themselves allies and receive mutual support.

So, while I agree that Palestinian groups commit egregious terrorist acts, I am not blind to the fact that groups that are considered freedom fighters also commit terrorist acts. You, on the other hand, are blinded by your bias and will justify terrorism when committed by certain groups and will rant when it is committed by the Palestinians, who you have a racial hate for. I denounce all terrorist acts.

The NFATC was established at Arlington Hall Station in the 90s, long after my separation. The USASA or INSCOM was there when I was in the service.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not to take the greater and more important point our friend "Shusha" in Posting 1064, there is one characteristic about the territory on either side of any borders - not necessarily the derivation of the demarcation itself (anywhere in the world).

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

(ANSWER TO THE QUESTION HOW)

A demarcation called a "border" marks the limit to a sovereignty. IF --- there is a demarcation, and there is no sovereignty on either side of a demarcation --- THEN --- that demarcation can be any number of markings, BUT not a border (boundary) . HOWEVER, IF a given sovereignty enforces its political and territorial controls up to a specific limit; it has established its border by demarcation. The demarcation then becomes a border limit to the sovereignty of that country. It does not care what is no the other side of the border.

I'm not sure, but if the Palestinians have any sovereign control at all, on the opposite side of the Israeli border, it certainly would not be very much.

The line itself does not care what you call it. What matters is that for any given country, they announce by the designation of a demarcation, that they have and maintain control of their territory up to that point. You may have heard recently that Saudi Arabia Is Building a 600-Mile Wall Along the Iraq Border, establishing a firm and physical demarcation.

NOW, the tricky part. As I said, the demarcation does not care what you call it. In fact, you do not have to name it at all. But aircraft that get shot down for a two-minute incursion understand enforcement.

There is a special kind of demarcation, known as a "Demilitarized Zone" (DMZ). It is not an official border, but you don't want to cross it without coordination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You can call yourself anything you want. But is you are a Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters, you are a "terrorist." Like HAMAS, IF you - by Covenant, define yourself as conducting or advocating Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, THEN there is a consequence for that that.

IF one of you pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (pHoAP) was involved in the recreational beach shooting of Senator Abraham Ribicoff's neice, one of 38 people shot to death by Palestine Liberation Organization terrorists, THEN there will be a consequence.

I don't believe you get the point. When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons.

(COMMENT)

I believe I mentioned the "political" interest component. The one component I did not mention was the degree to which the barbarism and bloodthirsty nature plays in the mix. Needless to say, whether or not you are identified as a terrorist; IF one of these righteous freedom fighters gets caught performing the characteristic violent action that the Palestinians are known so well for performing --- THEN --- it will be dealt with like any other terrorist that carries out these barbaric and bloodthirsty acts.

Terrorist is not necessarily a synonym of HoAP --- more the species to which the HoAP belongs.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

the use of terrorist tactics on the part of Israel is also terrorism. The killing of thousands of Palestinian civilian, for the most part women and children, is a terrorist act. It is designed to terrorize the Palestinians into acceptance of Israeli oppression.

There are so many things wrong with these sentences I hardly know where to start. There is a difference morally, if not legally, between terrorism and warfare. Yes, military operations are designed to "break the will" of the opponent as well as destroy their tangible assets. But this is not equivalent to "terrorism" which is intended to intimidate for the attainment of political goals.

So, no, what Israel does in the context of war (destroying the opponent's ability to physically carry out attacks by eliminating their tangible and intangible assets) is not terrorism.

The deaths of non-combatants in warfare is a result, and responsibility, of both actors. Both actors have an obligation to limit civilian harm.

The deaths of the 2014 War between Gaza and Israel, as an example, were disproportionally males of fighting age when compared to a broad civilian demographic (9% of the general population and 34% of the fatalities). Even B'tselem, which is hardly Israel-friendly, places the deaths of civilians (women, children and men over 60-something) at only 40%. And at least some of those "children" would be between the ages of 14 and 18 and would be considered combatants. (And that would be an example of terrorism directed at Hamas' own populace -- to have children placed in combat roles). So, no, the fatalities were not "for the most part women and children". That is an appeal to emotions not based in facts.

Israel disengagement from Gaza is the opposite of oppression.

 

[MJB12741]

the use of terrorist tactics on the part of Israel is also terrorism. The killing of thousands of Palestinian civilian, for the most part women and children, is a terrorist act. It is designed to terrorize the Palestinians into acceptance of Israeli oppression.

There are so many things wrong with these sentences I hardly know where to start. There is a difference morally, if not legally, between terrorism and warfare. Yes, military operations are designed to "break the will" of the opponent as well as destroy their tangible assets. But this is not equivalent to "terrorism" which is intended to intimidate for the attainment of political goals.

So, no, what Israel does in the context of war (destroying the opponent's ability to physically carry out attacks by eliminating their tangible and intangible assets) is not terrorism.

The deaths of non-combatants in warfare is a result, and responsibility, of both actors. Both actors have an obligation to limit civilian harm.

The deaths of the 2014 War between Gaza and Israel, as an example, were disproportionally males of fighting age when compared to a broad civilian demographic (9% of the general population and 34% of the fatalities). Even B'tselem, which is hardly Israel-friendly, places the deaths of civilians (women, children and men over 60-something) at only 40%. And at least some of those "children" would be between the ages of 14 and 18 and would be considered combatants. (And that would be an example of terrorism directed at Hamas' own populace -- to have children placed in combat roles). So, no, the fatalities were not "for the most part women and children". That is an appeal to emotions not based in facts.

Israel disengagement from Gaza is the opposite of oppression.

Israel grants the Palestinian request for a Jew free Gaza & the Palestinians thank Israel with jihads & rocket missiles. Hey I have an idea. Lets have Israel also give the Palestinians all of the West Bank & all of Jerusalem & just imagine how grateful the Palestinians would then be. Heh Heh!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not to take the greater and more important point our friend "Shusha" in Posting 1064, there is one characteristic about the territory on either side of any borders - not necessarily the derivation of the demarcation itself (anywhere in the world).

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

(ANSWER TO THE QUESTION HOW)

A demarcation called a "border" marks the limit to a sovereignty. IF --- there is a demarcation, and there is no sovereignty on either side of a demarcation --- THEN --- that demarcation can be any number of markings, BUT not a border (boundary) . HOWEVER, IF a given sovereignty enforces its political and territorial controls up to a specific limit; it has established its border by demarcation. The demarcation then becomes a border limit to the sovereignty of that country. It does not care what is no the other side of the border.

I'm not sure, but if the Palestinians have any sovereign control at all, on the opposite side of the Israeli border, it certainly would not be very much.

The line itself does not care what you call it. What matters is that for any given country, they announce by the designation of a demarcation, that they have and maintain control of their territory up to that point. You may have heard recently that Saudi Arabia Is Building a 600-Mile Wall Along the Iraq Border, establishing a firm and physical demarcation.

NOW, the tricky part. As I said, the demarcation does not care what you call it. In fact, you do not have to name it at all. But aircraft that get shot down for a two-minute incursion understand enforcement.

There is a special kind of demarcation, known as a "Demilitarized Zone" (DMZ). It is not an official border, but you don't want to cross it without coordination.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your verbosity missed my point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't believe you get the point. When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons.

Indeed, I have always considered the terrorist label political name calling. Particularly if it is by those who have a much worse record of violations.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

I've always thought this was an interesting and one-sided application of that principle. How did Jordan acquire territory which was not hers in 1948? The border between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the remaining slice of Palestine was never in dispute, was it? That was a clear border made by agreements and treaty.​

That was the undisputed international border between Palestine and Jordan. The question I have is how Jordan got to occupy Palestinian territory when the two were not at war?

So when we apply this principle, isn't it Jordan who can not acquire territory by war? The war conducted against Israel in 1948?​

Indeed, and they did not. Jordan did, however, attempt to annex that territory but it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory and still is today.

And if Jordan did not acquire that territory in 1948 (because it can't due to the principle that one can't acquire territory by war), then how can Israel have taken it from Jordan in 1967?​

Ahhh, the never answered question. How can Israel win (illegal) Palestinian territory in a war with Jordan? It would take some serious legal chicanery to try to explain that.

 

[Shusha]

That was the undisputed international border between Palestine and Jordan. The question I have is how Jordan got to occupy Palestinian territory when the two were not at war?

Um. They invaded.

​

Ahhh, the never answered question. How can Israel win (illegal) Palestinian territory in a war with Jordan? It would take some serious legal chicanery to try to explain that.

Easy. The non-Jordan part of Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel). And we know this to be true because the border between Jordan and the Jewish National Home (aka Israel), by treaty, is exactly where it should be.

It was Oslo which divided the Jewish National Home (aka Israel) into Israel and a hopeful one-day Palestine (aka Areas A, B and C).

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).

Israeli talking point.

Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."

 

[Shusha]

Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).

Israeli talking point.

Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."

Irrelevancies.

1. Israel is irrelevant to the conversation at hand because a self-determinative sovereign nation can call itself anything it wants. The Jewish National Homeland was named "Israel" in its Declaration of Independence. So what? Are you trying to tell me that there is some sort of international law which holds that States can only come into being with geographical place names already in existence? That's ridiculous. But even if its not ridiculous and if you really want to go with that argument:

2. Jewish National Home. You know, like Palestinian National Home. A sovereign homeland for the Jewish people. Identical to the concept of a sovereign homeland for the Palestinian people. Or a sovereign homeland for the French people. Or a sovereign homeland for the Scottish people. Or a sovereign homeland for the Kurdish people. This is not rocket science. There is nothing morally wrong with a "Jewish state".

3. Where did I mention "exclusive rights"? Never, EVER, have I mentioned "exclusive rights". Only Team Palestine calls for "exclusive rights". And Arab Muslims. I have always advocated for the rights of BOTH peoples. You should join me.



Now, back to the subject of the conversation, which is Israel's right to exist. And the fact that Palestine is the Jewish National Homeland. Here it is:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect ... the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

...such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions ...

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home...

The Zionist organization ... shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Administration of Palestine ... shall facilitate Jewish immigration ... and shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.


Now, you can argue that the Jewish National Homeland was not intended to take up all of the remaining portion of the Mandate for Palestine. That would be a tough argument. But marginally defendable. But to argue that "Palestine", at least in part, was not intended to be a self-governing National Homeland for the Jewish people, in light of the clear and legal indications to the contrary as written above, is just foolish. Silly. Patently ridiculous.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't believe you get the point. When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons. Your ranting about Palestinian terrorism is hypocritical when you ignore other organizations that practice terrorism. I consider Hamas an organization that practices terrorism, but, the use of terrorist tactics on the part of Israel is also terrorism. The killing of thousands of Palestinian civilian, for the most part women and children, is a terrorist act. It is designed to terrorize the Palestinians into acceptance of Israeli oppression. The Contras, for example, were brutal terrorists that killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguan civilians but were classified as freedom fighters. A very poignant example of how razor thin these determinations are made is when you consider that the Kurdish resistance in Turkey, the PKK, are classified as a terrorist organization, while Kurds in neighboring countries are allies and receive our support. Notwithstanding the fact that all Kurdish groups are among themselves allies and receive mutual support.

So, while I agree that Palestinian groups commit egregious terrorist acts, I am not blind to the fact that groups that are considered freedom fighters also commit terrorist acts. You, on the other hand, are blinded by your bias and will justify terrorism when committed by certain groups and will rant when it is committed by the Palestinians, who you have a racial hate for. I denounce all terrorist acts.

The NFATC was established at Arlington Hall Station in the 90s, long after my separation. The USASA or INSCOM was there when I was in the service.

And the fact that not one of those civilians would have died if they had not elected a terrorist group to lead them and then allowed them to use their property to fire illegal weapons at the Jews. Elect terrorists as your leaders and you end up paying a very heavy price in both lives and acceptability. Not one of those actions is seen as a terrorist action by the rest of the world, just islamonazi stooges and neo marxist scum, they see it as responding to war crimes, acts of war and illegal weapons. I point out all the time that 50% of gaza is uninhabited open land that the terrorists can fire from to their hearts content, so why do they use schools, hospitals, civilian homes and UN structures in civilian areas ? They know this is against the Geneva conventions as do their supporters yet still they are allowed to breach international laws.


Your comment that you denounce all terrorist acts is an outright LIE as you have stated the arab muslims can use any means to rid Israel of the Jews as your interpretation of a UN resolution says so.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not to take the greater and more important point our friend "Shusha" in Posting 1064, there is one characteristic about the territory on either side of any borders - not necessarily the derivation of the demarcation itself (anywhere in the world).

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

(ANSWER TO THE QUESTION HOW)

A demarcation called a "border" marks the limit to a sovereignty. IF --- there is a demarcation, and there is no sovereignty on either side of a demarcation --- THEN --- that demarcation can be any number of markings, BUT not a border (boundary) . HOWEVER, IF a given sovereignty enforces its political and territorial controls up to a specific limit; it has established its border by demarcation. The demarcation then becomes a border limit to the sovereignty of that country. It does not care what is no the other side of the border.

I'm not sure, but if the Palestinians have any sovereign control at all, on the opposite side of the Israeli border, it certainly would not be very much.

The line itself does not care what you call it. What matters is that for any given country, they announce by the designation of a demarcation, that they have and maintain control of their territory up to that point. You may have heard recently that Saudi Arabia Is Building a 600-Mile Wall Along the Iraq Border, establishing a firm and physical demarcation.

NOW, the tricky part. As I said, the demarcation does not care what you call it. In fact, you do not have to name it at all. But aircraft that get shot down for a two-minute incursion understand enforcement.

There is a special kind of demarcation, known as a "Demilitarized Zone" (DMZ). It is not an official border, but you don't want to cross it without coordination.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your verbosity missed my point.

No your brain missed the point that was the reply. It does not matter what you call it as long as it is recignised for what it is. And because the arab muslims have no control of the land they lose out, so time for them to declare their ability to stand on their own

 

[Phoenall]

I don't believe you get the point. When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons.

Indeed, I have always considered the terrorist label political name calling. Particularly if it is by those who have a much worse record of violations.

And you can produce the evidence of these records of violations from a neutral source, or do you only have those from the hate sites.


Responding to hostile acts is not terrorism
Returning fire during a war is not terrorism
Obeying the terms of the Geneva conventions is not terrorism

Firing illegal weapons at civilian areas is terrorism
Instigating war crimes is Terrorism
Breaching the Geneva conventions is terrorism

 

[Phoenall]

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

I've always thought this was an interesting and one-sided application of that principle. How did Jordan acquire territory which was not hers in 1948? The border between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the remaining slice of Palestine was never in dispute, was it? That was a clear border made by agreements and treaty.​

That was the undisputed international border between Palestine and Jordan. The question I have is how Jordan got to occupy Palestinian territory when the two were not at war?

So when we apply this principle, isn't it Jordan who can not acquire territory by war? The war conducted against Israel in 1948?​

Indeed, and they did not. Jordan did, however, attempt to annex that territory but it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory and still is today.

And if Jordan did not acquire that territory in 1948 (because it can't due to the principle that one can't acquire territory by war), then how can Israel have taken it from Jordan in 1967?​

Ahhh, the never answered question. How can Israel win (illegal) Palestinian territory in a war with Jordan? It would take some serious legal chicanery to try to explain that.

Wrong read your source again as it says the border of trans Jordan and the mandate of palestine. Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine that was allocated to the Jews as their national home that was a foriegn nation to them.

Jordan DID annexe the west bank and Jerusalem, and then proceeded to forcibly evict the Jews living there. Then passed illegal laws stealing the land owned by the Jews and giving it to migrants using post 1950 land titles. So the very things you accuse Israel of doing were actually done by the arab muslims ....................

Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem. The treaty that you claim is null and void because it hurts the arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).

Israeli talking point.

Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."

Mandate of palestine good enough for you, or is it denied because it is kuufar

 

[Shusha]

Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem.

I disagree with this, in part. Or I disagree with its wording. Israel's acquisition of sovereignty had NOTHING to do with Jordan or Jordan's actions.

True -- Israel did not acquire land through war. She acquired sovereignty over territory in exactly the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon acquired sovereignty -- through the legal instruments and treaties.

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).

Israeli talking point.

Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."

Irrelevancies.

1. Israel is irrelevant to the conversation at hand because a self-determinative sovereign nation can call itself anything it wants. The Jewish National Homeland was named "Israel" in its Declaration of Independence. So what? Are you trying to tell me that there is some sort of international law which holds that States can only come into being with geographical place names already in existence? That's ridiculous. But even if its not ridiculous and if you really want to go with that argument:

2. Jewish National Home. You know, like Palestinian National Home. A sovereign homeland for the Jewish people. Identical to the concept of a sovereign homeland for the Palestinian people. Or a sovereign homeland for the French people. Or a sovereign homeland for the Scottish people. Or a sovereign homeland for the Kurdish people. This is not rocket science. There is nothing morally wrong with a "Jewish state".

3. Where did I mention "exclusive rights"? Never, EVER, have I mentioned "exclusive rights". Only Team Palestine calls for "exclusive rights". And Arab Muslims. I have always advocated for the rights of BOTH peoples. You should join me.



Now, back to the subject of the conversation, which is Israel's right to exist. And the fact that Palestine is the Jewish National Homeland. Here it is:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect ... the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

...such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions ...

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home...

The Zionist organization ... shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Administration of Palestine ... shall facilitate Jewish immigration ... and shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.


Now, you can argue that the Jewish National Homeland was not intended to take up all of the remaining portion of the Mandate for Palestine. That would be a tough argument. But marginally defendable. But to argue that "Palestine", at least in part, was not intended to be a self-governing National Homeland for the Jewish people, in light of the clear and legal indications to the contrary as written above, is just foolish. Silly. Patently ridiculous.

Now he will jump up and down laughing manically as you forgot to remind him that 78% of palestine is already the arab muslim national home. And that is where the arab muslims that do not want to live in peace with the Jews should be living

 

[Phoenall]

Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem.

I disagree with this, in part. Or I disagree with its wording. Israel's acquisition of sovereignty had NOTHING to do with Jordan or Jordan's actions.

True -- Israel did not acquire land through war. She acquired sovereignty over territory in exactly the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon acquired sovereignty -- through the legal instruments and treaties.

Which is what I said, after Jordan gave up all claims to the west bank and the PLO took control of the negotiations they accepted Oslo 1 and 2 as being the way forward. The arab muslims expected to wage war on Israel and gain back what they gave up at a later date, but found them a tougher nut to crack. they always overstate their abilities and then moan when they are beaten back