Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[montelatici]

No screeching dear, just fact.

 

[MJB12741]

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.

"Native people of Palestine." You mean the Jews invaded themselves???

 

[Vikrant]

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.

STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT OTHER POSTERS SAY IT IS AGAINST THE RULES, AND YOUR TAME MOD IS NO LONGER HERE TO PROTECT YOU

You and your ilks are the only liars apart from few others.

 

[MJB12741]

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.

"Native people of Palestine." You mean the Jews invaded themselves???

Very cleaver those Zionists.

 

[Hollie]

No screeching dear, just fact.

I'm afraid your invention of laughable "facts" are not consistent with the historical record you know nothing of.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?

BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?

 

[P F Tinmore]

No screeching dear, just fact.

I'm afraid your invention of laughable "facts" are not consistent with the historical record you know nothing of.

IOW, they do not match Israeli bullshit.

 

[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.

"Native people of Palestine." You mean the Jews invaded themselves???

The European Jews came from Europe. How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?

 

[Shusha]

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 are ethnically cleansed from your sovereign land and you return -- its called the reconstitution of your National Homeland.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I almost rest my case.

Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?

(COMMENT)

IF you mean that the Arab Palestinians have already decided that settlement by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, is not going to be attempted --- THEN it can be said that the Arab Palestinians are not now interested in any solution other that conflict.

BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?

(COMMENT)

I did not see one single "right" denied. I have the right to earn a Million dollars; but, no one is just going to hand it to me.

The Arab Palestinians have lots of "rights;" but, no one is just going to hand it to you.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?

The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights. Their rights are inherent and inviolable. As are Jewish rights.

The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

IF you mean that the Arab Palestinians have already decided that settlement by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, is not going to be attempted --- THEN it can be said that the Arab Palestinians are not now interested in any solution other that conflict.

Do you mean endless talks while Israel continues to steal land?

BTW, where is the rest of all that stuff?

 

[P F Tinmore]

...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?

The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights. Their rights are inherent and inviolable. As are Jewish rights.

The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.

The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.

What is this negotiate boundaries thing?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???

...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?

The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights. Their rights are inherent and inviolable. As are Jewish rights.

The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.

The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.

What is this negotiate boundaries thing?

(COMMENT)

The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.

The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.

What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute. Disputes are normally handled through some peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Bleipriester]

The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.

It is a one sided dispute.

If I say I own your car is that a dispute?

 

[Shusha]

What is this negotiate boundaries thing?

Oh, its this weird little thing that this the basis for every freaking State in the world. No biggie. Shrug.

What you are really asking is why your imaginary Palestine has to give up part of what you (and they) mistakenly believe is "theirs". The answer is simple -- self-determination is an inherent, inviolable right which belongs to everyone and not just some people.

If Quebec wants to leave Canada; if Catalonia wants to leave Spain; if Scotland wants to leave the UK; or if any one of a dozen or more national movements wish to self-govern -- they have the right to do so.

It doesn't even matter if you subscribe to the notion that all of the remaining portion of the geographical area of Palestine is Israel (my view) or if its all "Palestine" (your view -- though fundamentally flawed and incorrect). The reality is that there are two distinct national movements in the territory. And they are fundamentally incompatible with one another. And they BOTH have the right to self-determination.

Again, it isn't a zero sum game.

And its especially problematic for Arab Palestinians to try to make it a zero sum game. They are losing. They are losing badly. On so many levels.

 

[RoccoR]

Bleipriester, et al,

Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject. It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations. And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.

In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant. The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe. The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe. IF Israel has no "Right" to exist, THEN it has not "Right" to hold any territory. The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.

"Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).

The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.

(REFERENCES)

Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.

A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
United Nations (United States) (AFP)

The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect".
Sign of the Times (SOTT) Wed, 18 Nov 2015
UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights

UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)

General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources

General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​

(DIRECT OBSERVATION)

​

(COMMENT)

It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth. In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear. This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.

The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.

Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel. Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."

The regional Arab nations (in this DAESH turbulant region) have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict. Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.

Because it is it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The same problem Jordan had with the West Bank.

Now what was the question?

 

[Phoenall]

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

Such as?

Meetting at a neutral venue and negotiating a just resolution to the problems. Something the arab muslims are refusing to do