Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[montelatici]

No, the problem is the Jews have never considered the possibility of two sandboxes, and never will. The Zionists always intended to remove the non-Jews from all of Palestine.

Monte, methinks you doth project too much.

Israel has never intended to remove non-Jews from Israel or Palestine. Evidence is simple enough. Arabs still live in both those areas. (Jews have been ethnically cleansed from all the surrounding ME nations).

There was a clear, stated intent, to remove all the non-Jews. I could provide a myriad of sources going back to the first Zionist conventions in the late 1880s. That the Jews weren't completely successful through the intervention of the Arab League, does not change the facts.

By the way, I know you admire my writing style and you have seen me use that Shakespeare quote from Hamlet, but it really isn't appropriate in this case. For your information, that phrase is used to describe someone's overly frequent and vehement attempts to convince others of some matter of which the opposite is true. Sorry to embarrass you.

 

[montelatici]

The Christians and Muslims you mean. But they were prevented from establishing sovereignty and exercising their right to self-determination by the British, while the invading Jews from Europe were assisted by the British, the U.S. and others.

Actually no. The Arab-Moslem squatters did not possess the skills or abilities to establish self-determination.

Why have many others been able to determine their futures without the cheap excuses you need to account for ineptitude and incompetence on the part of Arab-Moslem squatters?

Honey, the squatters are the Jews that went to Palestine from Europe. They lived on another continent. The Christians and Muslims lived in Palestine they were the native inhabitants. Try to understand that complex, for you, dynamic.

Let's see if you can understand this statement to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office in response to the Palestinian's request to allow them to exercise their self-determination and sovereignty through the constitution the Christians and Muslims drafted and agreed to. I know it's complicated for you dear, but give it a shot.

"the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies..."

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)

Yes, yes. That is the same cut and paste article you dump into many threads.

If you were to acquaint yourself with the history of the former Turkish holding, research the treaties and actions of the Brits who were in charge of the mandate, you might be able to write a bit more intelligently vs. mindlessly cutting and pasting the same articles.

The written statement of the British Colonial Office is the the synthesis of the past treaties and represents the actions of the British. Your inarticulate attempt at a response to fact which completely undermines your position is truly a masterpiece of idiocy. Stop digging.

 

[Shusha]

One third of the Christian and Muslim population was separated from the rest of the native inhabitants ... to be ruled in perpetuity by Jews ...

To be ruled by Jews?! The HORROR!

 

[P F Tinmore]

NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.

Of course the thieves do not see a problem.

No, wait. Go back to what you asked. You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination. You stated the Jewish people want self-determination. And you wanted to know if that was a problem.

Its a big enough sandbox for everyone. Everyone is already there in the sandbox. Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.

Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.

Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.

 

[Shusha]

NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.

Of course the thieves do not see a problem.

No, wait. Go back to what you asked. You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination. You stated the Jewish people want self-determination. And you wanted to know if that was a problem.

Its a big enough sandbox for everyone. Everyone is already there in the sandbox. Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.

Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.

Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.

Narrative. I asked for a reason.

 

[Shusha]

... that phrase is used to describe someone's overly frequent and vehement attempts to convince others of some matter of which the opposite is true ...

Um. No kidding.

 

[Hollie]

The Christians and Muslims you mean. But they were prevented from establishing sovereignty and exercising their right to self-determination by the British, while the invading Jews from Europe were assisted by the British, the U.S. and others.

Actually no. The Arab-Moslem squatters did not possess the skills or abilities to establish self-determination.

Why have many others been able to determine their futures without the cheap excuses you need to account for ineptitude and incompetence on the part of Arab-Moslem squatters?

Honey, the squatters are the Jews that went to Palestine from Europe. They lived on another continent. The Christians and Muslims lived in Palestine they were the native inhabitants. Try to understand that complex, for you, dynamic.

Let's see if you can understand this statement to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office in response to the Palestinian's request to allow them to exercise their self-determination and sovereignty through the constitution the Christians and Muslims drafted and agreed to. I know it's complicated for you dear, but give it a shot.

"the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies..."

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)

Yes, yes. That is the same cut and paste article you dump into many threads.

If you were to acquaint yourself with the history of the former Turkish holding, research the treaties and actions of the Brits who were in charge of the mandate, you might be able to write a bit more intelligently vs. mindlessly cutting and pasting the same articles.

The written statement of the British Colonial Office is the the synthesis of the past treaties and represents the actions of the British. Your inarticulate attempt at a response to fact which completely undermines your position is truly a masterpiece of idiocy. Stop digging.

Your frantic cutting and pasting of the same articles is merely a reflection of your inability to compose coherent sentences.

The fact remains that the Jewish people were able to establish self-determination (as many other societies have done), while the incompetent Arabs-Moslems could not. As you struggle with your lacking language skills, it's a hoot to watch you lash out.

 

[P F Tinmore]

NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.

Of course the thieves do not see a problem.

No, wait. Go back to what you asked. You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination. You stated the Jewish people want self-determination. And you wanted to know if that was a problem.

Its a big enough sandbox for everyone. Everyone is already there in the sandbox. Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.

Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.

Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.

Narrative. I asked for a reason.

The Zionists always wanted all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They never intended to share anything.

 

[Shusha]

There was a clear, stated intent, to remove all the non-Jews. I could provide a myriad of sources going back to the first Zionist conventions in the late 1880s.

Oh please. The Zionist Organizations proposals at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, as well as Emir Feisal's response to same, would contradict you in spades. Oh, and not to mention the reality that there are still Arabs in Israel.

Now, where would I find the Jewish communities in any of the ME countries surrounding Israel? And when can we start discussing their claim to self-determination so they don't have to be ruled by Arabs?

 

[Shusha]

NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.

Of course the thieves do not see a problem.

No, wait. Go back to what you asked. You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination. You stated the Jewish people want self-determination. And you wanted to know if that was a problem.

Its a big enough sandbox for everyone. Everyone is already there in the sandbox. Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.

Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.

Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.

Narrative. I asked for a reason.

The Zionists always wanted all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They never intended to share anything.

Narrative. I asked for a reason why the sandbox could not be divided.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was a clear, stated intent, to remove all the non-Jews.

The Zionists had to have a solid majority in a territory that was majority Palestinian. It was necessary to expel the Palestinians. It was a requirement.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense.

The Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory where not a party to or an author of, the intent or implementation of the Mandate;

In contravention of Article 22 of the LoN Covenant.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the Covenant requires the Allied Powers to acquiesce in favor of the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory. It is the other way around. The Enemy Occupied population is under the effective control of the Allied Powers (Articles 42/43, HR).

The Allied Powers could not interpret the Covenant any way they wanted. Words have meaning and express legal concepts. The Christian and Muslim "inhabitants" of Palestine had the right to self-determination as did the inhabitants of the other former Turkish territories that came under the tutelage (not sovereignty) of the various Mandatories. These rights did not accrue to people living in Europe, regardless want a prior agreement stated.

Any prior agreements that ran contrary to the Covenant, as the Balfour Declaration were to have abrogated by signatories of the Covenant pursuant to article 20 of the Covenant, to wit:

"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.'

(COMMENT)

As I said before (in several distinct ways) only members of the Covenant can make the allegation that a member of the Covenant is acting contrary to the Covenant. When the members are silent in the Covenant, this is call exercising "neutrality."

NEUTRALITY AND THE LEAGUE COVENANT - Pages Last Para 370- First Para 371

QUOTE: Including citations from the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL] on Self-Determination
It may be concluded from the foregoing survey of the Covenant's provisions that neutrality of League members is possible, within the framework of the Covenant:

(1) in wars of execution, where a League member takes up arms to enforce its rights under a duly made arbitral award, judicial decision or conciliatory report; such neutrality is obligatory;
(2) in duel wars, wars fought out between the contestants after exhausting the irenic procedure of the League; here, too, members are compulsorily neutral;
(3) in wars outside the League, when the parties have not been invited to use the conciliatory procedure under the Covenant, or when they have declined to submit their dispute; this neutrality is optional, subject to the procedural limitations on the resort by members to war.
​

All these instances presuppose the abstention of the other members from intervention under Article 11 or from the application of sanctions under Article 16. What the situation is under sanctions will presently be seen. All three of the foregoing may be regarded as tolerated wars; only the first two as licit within the general scheme of the Covenant.
​

To date, 98 years later, NO Country that was a member of the Covenant has intervened under Article 11 or Article 16. It should be noted that under the terms of the Covenant, The action of the League under this Covenant shall be effected through the instrumentality of an Assembly and of a Council, with a permanent Secretariat. It has been the effective policy of the Arab Palestinian, since 1919, not to use the standing "Dispute Resolution" Process. It was just as true then (1919) as it is today with the Oslo Agreements and the Declaration on Principles of International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course the thieves do not see a problem.

No, wait. Go back to what you asked. You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination. You stated the Jewish people want self-determination. And you wanted to know if that was a problem.

Its a big enough sandbox for everyone. Everyone is already there in the sandbox. Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.

Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.

Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.

Narrative. I asked for a reason.

The Zionists always wanted all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They never intended to share anything.

Narrative. I asked for a reason why the sandbox could not be divided.

Why does it need to be divided?

 

[Shusha]

Why does it need to be divided?

You asked the question. The Arab Palestinians want self-determination. The Jewish people want self-determination. If we divide it then they can both have it.

Now, is there a reason why it can't be divided?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nothing in the Covenant requires the Allied Powers to acquiesce in favor of the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

After the Treaty of Lausanne Palestine was no longer enemy territory. It was a successor state.

Different set of rules.

Why does it need to be divided?

You asked the question. The Arab Palestinians want self-determination. The Jewish people want self-determination. If we divide it then they can both have it.

Now, is there a reason why it can't be divided?

That would violate the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity.

 

[Shusha]

That would violate the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity.

Are you trying to claim that peoples with rights to self-determination can NEVER, by treaty and mutual agreement, make a State into two (or more smaller ones)? Because of "territorial integrity"?

Give me a break. There have been dozens of instances of this happening globally in the past 100 years.

 

[montelatici]

What you can't do, is take an action against the wishes of a people that causes said people to lose the ability to exercise their right to self-determination.

 

[MJB12741]

What you can't do, is take an action against the wishes of a people that causes said people to lose the ability to exercise their right to self-determination.

Are you for real? Let me get this straight. Do you actually want Israel to grant the Palestinians self determination without Israel to suck off of to support them any longer? I could never wish such a punishment upon the Palestinians.

 

[montelatici]

You are confused and have nothing to add to the discussion. The issue in question is the legality of the Partition, Israel did not exist at the time. Palestinians are supported by the International community, Israel collects taxes from the Palestinians and sucks off them. You have as much credibility in this discussion as in the one of about your Muslim Archbishop.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, just a couple minor corrections here.

Nothing in the Covenant requires the Allied Powers to acquiesce in favor of the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

After the Treaty of Lausanne Palestine was no longer enemy territory. It was a successor state.

Different set of rules.

(COMMENT)

• In April 1920, San Remo Agreement: The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

"Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection."
​

• The EOTA transitioned to a Civil Administration in July 1920.

• With the Treaty of Sevres in August 1920.

• Actually, there was no actual Successor State, because there was no original state corresponding to Palestine. The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. It became the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." Palestine Order in Council

Why does it need to be divided?

You asked the question. The Arab Palestinians want self-determination. The Jewish people want self-determination. If we divide it then they can both have it.

Now, is there a reason why it can't be divided?

That would violate the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

No where, after the Ottoman Surrender at Mudros (1918) and prior to the Treaty of Lausanne (1924), do the Arab Palestinians achieve supreme authority or sovereignty; with the exception of Trans-jordan.

The "Right of Territorial Integrity" can not be exercised is the people do not have a territory they have control over (sovereignty). That is not to say that the right is not available, it just cannot be applied.

You have the "Right to Wash Your Car."
Except, you don't own a car.
No one is going to give you a car
just because you have a Right to Wash your Car.​

Having the "Right to Territorial Integrity" is meaningless if there is no territory to maintain the integrity over.

Most Respectfully,
R