Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.

Nonsense; English is my native language.

(COMMENT)

Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed. No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).

There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.

In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed. In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer, Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon. Over time, things changed.
​

So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.

Excerpt From:
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration

52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:

“The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”

“The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”

“His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
immigration in any of its categories.”
​

One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between. In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word. A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation. The concern, all through the 1930s was that IF they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, THEN they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.

Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go, an illegal agreement* (Balfour Declaration) caused the British to prevent the Palestinian Christians and Muslims from achieving their goal of self-determination and a state of their own. So, now that you have done some research, research that I had done and used to dispute your assertion that the Palestinians were to blame for for not achieving statehood, was, like most of your assertions, bullshit. The British would not allow the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to create a state because there too many of them compared to the European Jew population in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, hence, prior to signing the Covenant the British were bound to "procure its release" from the Balfour Declaration and were required to adhere to ARTICLE 22 which stated in part, "inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples " "Such peoples" were the Christian and Muslim natives who represented 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant. "Such peoples" were not European Jews who wer inhabiting Europe.

*"Covenant of the League of Nations

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Trying to use the LoN covenant retroactively is a no no


As for article 22 that was fulfilled by granting the arab muslims 78% of palestine, and then placing the NO JEWS law in place

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

This is something that was a "view" nearly a century ago.

DOWNING STREET,
3rd June, 1922.

......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

(COMMENT)

First, I ask you to review Posting # 1121, the reality.

Then I ask you a question: What's your Plan? What's your contingency if there is an outbreak of hostilities?

• Do you think that the contemporary Government of Israel (GOI) is just going to walk-up and hand the keys to Israel to you?
• What (very improbable) sets of events would have to occur that would induce the GOI to surrender their title and rights to self-government and sovereignty?
• How do you picture this unfolding?
​

I wonder what would happen if it were the UN that had to hand over its title and rights to self-government and sovereignty --- what would happen? Would we rain three kinds of hell upon them or four? Neither the UN or any other powerful body would: "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."

(RATIONAL CONSEQUENCE)

If the people of the only Jewish Nation in the world (8 Million = half the worlds Jewish population, including over 30,000 Americans from 36 different states) were to be put at the risk and invokes the inherent right of selfdefense (Chapter VII Art 51):

• What do you think the American domestic political backlash would be?
• Would America go to war with Israel over something America did and could have prevented?
• What does the Arab League have at risk if the peace and security of Israel was threatened?
• What assistance do you think Israel would ask of the Russian Federation should the US impose sanctions or embargoes?
• If it was your country, what lengths would you go to if you were the most civilized and developed country in the world?
​

IF you were the Emperor of the Earth, how do you put your plan into action?

Most Respectfully,
R

I ask you a question. Given that you now accept that the Christian and Muslims were lied to by the British at the beginning, and the British/UN clearly failed to protect the civil and religious rights of the the non-Jews as promised in the Mandate, why do you appear surprised and constantly criticize the non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews, in response to the violent conquest of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years, on the part of the European Jews.

The Palestinians will never be compensated for their loss at the hands of the Jews, we all know that. My problem with you is that you criticize the Palestinians for doing what conquered people under occupation have always done. Have you ever criticized the Kurds when they carry out terrorist attacks in Iran or Turkey?

Because the people responsible have refused to do so, and that is the arab league that invited the arab muslims to migrate illegally and take the land by force

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I'm not sure where you get that I "now accept that the Christian and Muslims were lied to by the British" in some lump. This is some sort of ambush and I don't lean into them.

I ask you a question. Given that you now accept that the Christian and Muslims were lied to by the British at the beginning, and the British/UN clearly failed to protect the civil and religious rights of the the non-Jews as promised in the Mandate, why do you appear surprised and constantly criticize the non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews, in response to the violent conquest of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years, on the part of the European Jews.

The Palestinians will never be compensated for their loss at the hands of the Jews, we all know that. My problem with you is that you criticize the Palestinians for doing what conquered people under occupation have always done. Have you ever criticized the Kurds when they carry out terrorist attacks in Iran or Turkey?

(YOUR QUESTIONS)

• "[W]hy do you appear surprised and constantly criticize the non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews [?]"

Well, I'm really never surprised by the actions of those that either support or follow those that engaged in Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. And I error on the side of caution, I am suspicious of every "Arab" (regardless of their faith), including those that are anti-Government, anti-Semitic, or openly provide direct support or material assistance (tangible or intangible) to those that DO NOT:

§ Practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.
§ Promote the rule of law among nations.
§ Place a great importance on the maintenance of international peace and security.
§ Foster great political, economic, social changes and scientific progress over violence.
​

YES I heavily criticize the regional non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews AS OPOSED to the progressive development and investment in their nation and culture; starting with:

§ Refraining from actions that threaten Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence against the territorial integrity or political independence of the Jewish State of Israel.
§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
​

• Relative to the statement: ... "violent conquest of the land" ...

§ I do not advocate violence. I am a not opposed to the use of violence, especially in the example case of the Jewish People establishing their National Home. And I am a very strong advocate that once a conflict begins, the military engagement continues until one side or the other capitulates or is annihilate to the point that a regime can replace the aggressor. There should be a point at which the humanitarian considerations only serve to drag-on the fight unnecessarily.
§ There comes a time when the hostile aggressor must be obliterate to an unrecoverable point. That moment comes when it is evident that the hostile aggressor is only holding on by donor contributions and a regime adoption to use unlawful and intentional use Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place that would otherwise be protected under imaginary international law.
​

• "[Y]ou criticize the Palestinians for doing what conquered people under occupation have always done.

§ And I advocate that in the absence of a good faith peace process effort, that Israel be allowed to prosecute such military action upon the Hostile Arab Palestinians that their will ---- to continue the struggle --- is effectively ended and the post-Conflict reconstruction effort and begin without fear of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
​

Ceterum censeo Palestinem esse delendam!
​

• "[H]ave you ever criticized the Kurds when they carry out terrorist attacks in Iran or Turkey?"

§ Yes, but that is an Iraqi Failure and another story all together.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

(FYI)

The man who drove a car into a crowd of students at Ohio State University on Monday and then attacked bystanders with a butcher knife, injuring at least 11, has been identified as a student at the university, and officials are investigating whether terrorism was a motive. The attacker, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who authorities said was about 20 years old, was shot and killed by a university police officer who arrived and brought Artan down within a minute, officials said. "This happened right before his eyes," campus Police Chief Craig Stone said of Officer Alan Horujko, 28, who had been in the area on another call. In a previous news conference, Stone said Artan had not "followed" the officer's commands and "the officer did what he had to do to end the threat."

(Q)

Does this sound familiar? (Always be suspicious!)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

So, it is established that you support murderous violence when it is practiced by invading Jews against native Christians and Muslims, but you consider violent resistance, to the Violent Aggressor Jewish Invader (VAJI) by said native inhabitants, inappropriate hostility. Notwithstanding the fact that the Jews had every intent to ethnically cleanse as many native non-Jews as possible to make room for yet more European Jews.

Comparing a Somali refugee in the U.S. with the native people of Palestine, under Jew occupation and oppression, makes a whole lot of sense.

You are just so conditioned you can't help yourself from exposing your irrational bias.

 

[Meathead]

I haven't followed this thread, but it seems to me there need be no legal right to exist. Existence itself makes that idiotic.

Sorry, carry on.

 

[P F Tinmore]

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

 

[Hollie]

So, it is established that you support murderous violence when it is practiced by invading Jews against native Christians and Muslims, but you consider violent resistance, to the Violent Aggressor Jewish Invader (VAJI) by said native inhabitants, inappropriate hostility. Notwithstanding the fact that the Jews had every intent to ethnically cleanse as many native non-Jews as possible to make room for yet more European Jews.

Comparing a Somali refugee in the U.S. with the native people of Palestine, under Jew occupation and oppression, makes a whole lot of sense.

You are just so conditioned you can't help yourself from exposing your irrational bias.

It's been established that your pathology of IJH and your debilitating Jew paranoia causes you to make these impassioned, strident pleas.

It's really pretty ugly.

 

[Hollie]

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.

Uhhh, that wasn't the question.

 

[Hollie]

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.

Uhhh, that wasn't the question.

Uhhh, you didn't like the answer.

 

[MJB12741]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was converted in 1948. The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.

Blame the UN for the acquired territory. Not European Jews.

The European Jews are those that engaged in the armed invasion, not the UN.

How do ya like that. And here I actually believed bombardier Begin was defending what the UN granted to the Jews but sure would have preferred he didn't have to.

 

[P F Tinmore]

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.

Uhhh, that wasn't the question.

Uhhh, you didn't like the answer.

Whose question were you answering?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Leaders are a molder of consensus. There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict. The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset. The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

(COMMENT)

"Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson
​

I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service." But they only deal with people of some sanity. That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.

Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.

(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)

"Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute." I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement. They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.

The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation. They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Rocco, was defending the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years a "Jihad"? And since about 30% of the Palestinians were Christians when the European Jews initiated the invasion, what would you call their efforts to defend themselves from the invading Jews? A Crusade?

 

[Hollie]

Rocco, was defending the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years a "Jihad"? And since about 30% of the Palestinians were Christians when the European Jews initiated the invasion, what would you call their efforts to defend themselves from the invading Jews? A Crusade?

What would you call your silly "Jew invasion" slogan? Meaningless tripe?

 

[montelatici]

When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.

 

[Hollie]

When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.

When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.

 

[montelatici]

When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.

When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.

The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact. The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.

When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.

The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact. The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.

I'm afraid your screeching out of your usual slogans and clichés does little to support such a buffoonish argument.