The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Shusha]

Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism, so how can it possibly be anti-Semitic?

This last post is mostly off topic, so I will leave it alone and try to address it on other threads. But I feel compelled to address your quote which was, if memory serves, "Zionists do not deserve a country".

So here is the problem with that. Zionism is the idea that the Jewish people, like every other people in the world, have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands. It is the exact same concept as Tibetans have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands. And Catalans have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands. And Kurds have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands. And, if you push it far enough, and I do, that Palestinians have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.

So when one says "Zionists" do not deserve a country they are saying, in fact, that the Jewish people do not deserve a country.

And there is no reason in the world for the Jewish people to be the only ones who do not have that right other than anti-semitism.

On another note, Zionism has everything to do with Judaism. It is an integral point of faith. The very foundation of the religious perspective. Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea that religious beliefs should play any role in politics or in the rights of peoples. But to say that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism is not true.

 

[Boston1]

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Article 4

Quote

• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​

It does reference several international laws that are binding.

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjx-YvM37HKAhVP5mMKHcaGBEcQFggcMAA&url=http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVHK-TRv1gB9Jns-L_EF78bfH-ww&sig2=Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.

Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjzs--Z4bHKAhUEMGMKHaS9CjEQFggcMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&usg=AFQjCNHKkxKvnSNkwDjiO5EKjcw-ckRZvQ&sig2=gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.​

Oh really? It is illegal to acquire territory by war.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.​

You don't see a connection there?

No absolutely none.

Firstly you have not quoted international law, you have reiterated a suggestion made by the UN in one of its many non binding general assembly resolutions

Second, palestine has never been a nation, ergo there can be no national territory as defined within the UN suggestion.

 

[P F Tinmore]

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Article 4

Quote

• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​

It does reference several international laws that are binding.

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjx-YvM37HKAhVP5mMKHcaGBEcQFggcMAA&url=http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVHK-TRv1gB9Jns-L_EF78bfH-ww&sig2=Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.

Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjzs--Z4bHKAhUEMGMKHaS9CjEQFggcMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&usg=AFQjCNHKkxKvnSNkwDjiO5EKjcw-ckRZvQ&sig2=gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.​

Oh really? It is illegal to acquire territory by war.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.​

You don't see a connection there?

No absolutely none.

Firstly you have not quoted international law, you have reiterated a suggestion made by the UN in one of its many non binding general assembly resolutions

Second, palestine has never been a nation, ergo there can be no national territory as defined within the UN suggestion.

Can you prove what you said?

 

[Boston1]

Already have in multiple threads

But rather than quote a bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.

 

[Billo_Really]

This last post is mostly off topic, so I will leave it alone and try to address it on other threads. But I feel compelled to address your quote which was, if memory serves, "Zionists do not deserve a country".

So here is the problem with that. Zionism is the idea that the Jewish people, like every other people in the world, have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands. It is the exact same concept as Tibetans have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands. And Catalans have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands. And Kurds have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands. And, if you push it far enough, and I do, that Palestinians have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.

So when one says "Zionists" do not deserve a country they are saying, in fact, that the Jewish people do not deserve a country.

And there is no reason in the world for the Jewish people to be the only ones who do not have that right other than anti-semitism.

On another note, Zionism has everything to do with Judaism. It is an integral point of faith. The very foundation of the religious perspective. Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea that religious beliefs should play any role in politics or in the rights of peoples. But to say that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism is not true.

Zionism is a political movement; Judaism is a religion. How much clearer can that be? Why do you keep trying to push a religious ideology into a political problem?

If Zionism was the very foundation of the religious perspective, it wouldn't be violating the Three Oaths. But I will concede Zionism has one thing to do with Judaism; it uses Judaism, like a cheap whore uses a condom. Much like the neocons in this country used Christianity.

And the reasons Zionists don't deserve a country, is because of what they've done with it over the last 70 years.

• you thumb your nose at international law
• you don't respect human rights
• you treat the Pals like the Nazis treated the Jews
• you attack humanitarian aid vessels in international waters
• you want to be known as the "Jewish State", but claim that's not apartheid
• you constantly blame others for the shit things you do
• and last but not least, Zionists are "assholes". Major fucking assholes.

It's easy to see that from the posts of all the people defending them.

• Roudy = asshole
• Hollie = bitch asshole
• Independent = nice asshole
• Kondor3 = immature asshole (and US traitor)
• Phoeny = fucked in the head, 15 year old asshole (by the way, where is he?)
• Boston1 = loves to hear himself talk asshole
• Rhodes_Scolar = major asshole that makes me look like Mother Theresa

You and RoccoR are anomalies. You're not assholes, but sometimes you cheerlead the ones who are.

 

[Billo_Really]

Already have in multiple threads

But rather than quote a bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Already have in multiple threads

But rather than quote a bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
State succession

A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[122] Judge Higgins explained that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State."[123]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boston1]

Already have in multiple threads

But rather than quote a bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.

Israel isn't occupying the area, the mandate area west of the Jordan was intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and thats exactly what Israel is doing with it.

Oh and as for the Wiki Quote. This again is why Wiki should be looked upon with a healthy dose of caution. The interpretation of league of nation council actions in modern international law is obviously flawed when the ICC does not recognize one palestinian state let alone a whole bunch of small ones.

See
Palestine and the ICC — Some Legal Questions | Just Security

So even if a non binding entity like the UN accepts palestine as an observer state, Their own binding entity does not. Leaves the whole thing in limbo.

The ICC on the other hand may or may not be a binding entity due to the US objection but either way Oslo II is still in effect which precludes the ICC involvement through a legal agreement. So its actually illegal for the Arab Muslim colonists to have declared themselves a state since they already agreed that all such declarations shall be the result of negotiations.

See also
ICC won't probe Gaza war because Palestine 'not a state'

 

[P F Tinmore]

Already have in multiple threads

But rather than quote a bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.

Israel isn't occupying the area, the mandate area west of the Jordan was intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and thats exactly what Israel is doing with it.

Israel isn't what the Jewish National Home was supposed to be.

 

[Boston1]

Already have in multiple threads

But rather than quote a bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.

Israel isn't occupying the area, the mandate area west of the Jordan was intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and thats exactly what Israel is doing with it.

Israel isn't what the Jewish National Home was supposed to be.

More accurately palestine isn't what the Jewish national home was supposed to be.

Specifically Israel is entittled to set up camp anywhere west of the Jordan river and the Arab Muslim colonists were given everything east. The two state solution. It really doesn't matter what they are named.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Already have in multiple threads

But rather than quote a bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.

Israel isn't occupying the area, the mandate area west of the Jordan was intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and thats exactly what Israel is doing with it.

Israel isn't what the Jewish National Home was supposed to be.

More accurately palestine isn't what the Jewish national home was supposed to be.

Specifically Israel is entittled to set up camp anywhere west of the Jordan river and the Arab Muslim colonists were given everything east. The two state solution. It really doesn't matter what they are named.

Link?

 

[Boston1]

It sounds like you are conceding the issue of palestine NOT being a state as per ICC ruling and would now like to move on to discuss Israel's specific permission to create a national Jewish homeland.

Again it looks like we are making progress ;--)

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ib3CSgGxVK4j5dAxnobQxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

 

[P F Tinmore]

It sounds like you are conceding the issue of palestine NOT being a state as per ICC ruling and would now like to move on to discuss Israel's specific permission to create a national Jewish homeland.

Again it looks like we are making progress ;--)

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi4942h0LPKAhWFKGMKHXj0Av0QFggcMAA&url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp&usg=AFQjCNEtqWnoOcMsGUcgKmkZOjrTAGt8uQ&sig2=ib3CSgGxVK4j5dAxnobQxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?

 

[Boston1]

It sounds like you are conceding the issue of palestine NOT being a state as per ICC ruling and would now like to move on to discuss Israel's specific permission to create a national Jewish homeland.

Again it looks like we are making progress ;--)

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi4942h0LPKAhWFKGMKHXj0Av0QFggcMAA&url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp&usg=AFQjCNEtqWnoOcMsGUcgKmkZOjrTAGt8uQ&sig2=ib3CSgGxVK4j5dAxnobQxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?

Not once

Quote
ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

End Quote

 

[P F Tinmore]

It sounds like you are conceding the issue of palestine NOT being a state as per ICC ruling and would now like to move on to discuss Israel's specific permission to create a national Jewish homeland.

Again it looks like we are making progress ;--)

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi4942h0LPKAhWFKGMKHXj0Av0QFggcMAA&url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp&usg=AFQjCNEtqWnoOcMsGUcgKmkZOjrTAGt8uQ&sig2=ib3CSgGxVK4j5dAxnobQxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?

Not once

Quote
ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

End Quote

Actually it was 10 times.

If you look at everything from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate you will see that Israel is the aberration not what was planned.

 

[Boston1]

I'm sorry if you are not able to follow the conversation, maybe someone on your end can give you a hand

Your post #373

Quote
What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?
End Quote

and I responded

in post 374

Not once

Quote
ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

End Quote

Now you claiming article 10 uses the term "state" 13 times

Palestine was never a state, even the ICC makes it clear that there is no such thing as a state of palestine

 

[Shusha]

Zionism is a political movement; Judaism is a religion. How much clearer can that be? Why do you keep trying to push a religious ideology into a political problem?

If Zionism was the very foundation of the religious perspective, it wouldn't be violating the Three Oaths. But I will concede Zionism has one thing to do with Judaism; it uses Judaism, like a cheap whore uses a condom. Much like the neocons in this country used Christianity.

And the reasons Zionists don't deserve a country, is because of what they've done with it over the last 70 years.

• you thumb your nose at international law
• you don't respect human rights
• you treat the Pals like the Nazis treated the Jews
• you attack humanitarian aid vessels in international waters
• you want to be known as the "Jewish State", but claim that's not apartheid
• you constantly blame others for the shit things you do
• and last but not least, Zionists are "assholes". Major fucking assholes.

It's easy to see that from the posts of all the people defending them.

• Roudy = asshole
• Hollie = bitch asshole
• Independent = nice asshole
• Kondor3 = immature asshole (and US traitor)
• Phoeny = fucked in the head, 15 year old asshole (by the way, where is he?)
• Boston1 = loves to hear himself talk asshole
• Rhodes_Scolar = major asshole that makes me look like Mother Theresa

You and RoccoR are anomalies. You're not assholes, but sometimes you cheerlead the ones who are.

Billo, my friend, I have decided I am officially adopting you as my nemesis here. I have long been of the fanciful notion that each of us has a particular poster who rattles our chains and is just enough like us to make it interesting. On my previous forum, now shut down , it was a lovely British man who portrayed himself in his avatar as both younger and better-looking than he was and disguised his anti-semitism with a lace tablecloth set out with British tea on fine china. The biscuits looked pretty while tasting of poison.

You have a bit of spunk to you, just enough legal understanding to follow the crowd without really knowing what you are talking about, and the guts to say what you are really thinking, even if its crude and obnoxious and nothing more than an appeal to emotion to demonize Israel. Ultimately, though, you discuss the moral aspects of the conflict and I think you might actually be focused on solving the problem, instead of tossing around legal clauses like stones. You are like a spoonful of Buckley's topped with a bit of honey. Smells fine, until you swallow it.

That said, here are the reasons why the Palestinians do not deserve a country:

1. They twist international law to say whatever they want it to say.
2. They don't believe human rights applies to the apes and pigs, um, I mean, Jews.
3. They use their own children as propaganda tools and shields and soldiers.
4. They call knives and steel pipes "humanitarian aide".
5. They keep refusing to make a State or take one that is given to them on silver fucking platter.
6. They can't take responsibility for any part of the conflict and consider themselves helpless, blameless, victims. Even while firing rockets, building tunnels and stabbing people.
7. They lie about Israel to get false sympathy.
8. They celebrate their own culture of death.


(For fun, I could also do one on why Americans don't deserve a country. I just have to figure out where to put it.)

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm sorry if you are not able to follow the conversation, maybe someone on your end can give you a hand

Your post #373

Quote
What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?
End Quote

and I responded

in post 374

Not once

Quote
ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

End Quote

Now you claiming article 10 uses the term "state" 13 times

Palestine was never a state, even the ICC makes it clear that there is no such thing as a state of palestine

Now you claiming article 10 uses the term "state" 13 times​

Uhhh, no.

United States considered that Palestine was a state In 1932

The proposition that Palestine is a state may seem strange to some. It was not so strange to a U.S. district judge who had to decide the issue in a 1953 case." A man named Kletter was born in Palestine in 1911, when Palestine was under the control of the Ottoman Turks. As a boy, Kletter accompanied his mother immigrating to the United States, where she was naturalized in 1928, thereby conferring U.S. nationality not only on herself but also on Kletter, then age 17. A few years later Kletter went back to Palestine, where he was naturalized in 1935. But then he returned to the United State and wanted privileges that would come with U.S. nationality. Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Palestine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter's naturalization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national: "[N]aturalization in any foreign state...constitutes expatriation. The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit." In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce." The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

In 1932, Britain had just enacted comprehensive tariffs on incoming goods but wanted to exempt goods from Palestine. Britain did not want to damage the exports of Palestine, as Palestine was under British administration. But Britain had a problem; it had treaties with a number of states, including the United States, that provided that such states were entitled to the lowest tariff rates Britain charged to any other state. This was the most favored nation provision to which the court referred. If Britain allowed goods from Palestine duty-free, the United States, and indeed a number of other states, including France and Italy, might claim a similar exemption. The issue turned on whether Palestine was a state.

To test the waters, Britain made discreet diplomatic inquiries to ask whether, if Britain were to exempt Palestine, the United States would claim a similar exemption on the basis that Palestine was a state. The United States replied emphatically that it would. The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil​

 

[Boston1]

I'm sorry you are having trouble following the conversation. Let me remind you of your post

#373

Quote
What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?
End Quote

and I responded

in post 374

Not once

Quote
ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

End Quote

Now you claiming article 10 uses the term "state" 13 times

Maybe you can have someone help you reread all these last and help you catch up.

Hope all is well.

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo, my friend, I have decided I am officially adopting you as my nemesis here. I have long been of the fanciful notion that each of us has a particular poster who rattles our chains and is just enough like us to make it interesting. On my previous forum, now shut down , it was a lovely British man who portrayed himself in his avatar as both younger and better-looking than he was and disguised his anti-semitism with a lace tablecloth set out with British tea on fine china. The biscuits looked pretty while tasting of poison.

I could care less about Jews, Judaism, Muslims or Islam. I'm a white, Irish Catholic. This conflict doesn't affect my daily life in any way. And because of that, I'm probably the most objective voice you will hear on this issue.

You have a bit of spunk to you, just enough legal understanding to follow the crowd without really knowing what you are talking about, and the guts to say what you are really thinking, even if its crude and obnoxious and nothing more than an appeal to emotion to demonize Israel. Ultimately, though, you discuss the moral aspects of the conflict and I think you might actually be focused on solving the problem, instead of tossing around legal clauses like stones. You are like a spoonful of Buckley's topped with a bit of honey. Smells fine, until you swallow it.

My use of profanity is just the way I talk, nothing more. And you're right, I'm going to say exactly what's on my mind. I'm also one of the few posters that is willing to admit I'm wrong, when presented with a good enough argument.

That said, here are the reasons why the Palestinians do not deserve a country:

1. They twist international law to say whatever they want it to say.
2. They don't believe human rights applies to the apes and pigs, um, I mean, Jews.
3. They use their own children as propaganda tools and shields and soldiers.
4. They call knives and steel pipes "humanitarian aide".
5. They keep refusing to make a State or take one that is given to them on silver fucking platter.
6. They can't take responsibility for any part of the conflict and consider themselves helpless, blameless, victims. Even while firing rockets, building tunnels and stabbing people.
7. They lie about Israel to get false sympathy.
8. They celebrate their own culture of death.


(For fun, I could also do one on why Americans don't deserve a country. I just have to figure out where to put it.)

I completely support the Israeli left; but I despise the Israeli right. Do you know why I despise the Israeli right? It's because they remind me of neocons, whom I absolutely loathe.

The bottom line with Israel is, it doesn't matter whether Palestine was a state or not, nothing changes the fact that there was an indigenous population of Arabs (over a million), to just 300,000 Jews, at the time Zionists declared Israel to be a state. That indigenous population of Arabs have rights that you cannot take away and that they cannot give up.

The Balfour Declaration even had the caveat that stated Zionists could create the state of Israel, as long as it didn't prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population. But that's exactly what Zionists did.

Here's a thought, why don't you give all of Palestine to the Palestinian's and all the Israeli's can move to the US. We'll give you Wisconsin. The Mormons already got dibs on Utah.