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

[Shusha]

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

I am more and more convinced that your broad argument is legally viable while at the same time entirely at odds with your purpose of denying Jewish sovereignty. In other words, every argument you make to support the "Palestinian's" sovereignty over the entire territory is actually an argument which can EQUALLY be made to support the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty over the entire territory.

From the link:The phenomenon of occupation is currently defined as "the effective control of a power (be it one or more states or an international organization, such as the United Nations) over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory.

Since, as you argue, sovereignty is inherent in the people -- ALL of the peoples of "Palestine" have sovereign title to the territory. It is a legal condition of occupation to lack sovereignty over the territory. Since neither people lack sovereignty over the territory, neither people can be occupiers of the territory. Therefore, there can be no occupation of either people by the other people.

Thus, even without the CLEAR intent of the treaties to enforce the rights of the Jewish people to the re-constitution of their national homeland, Israel has every right to sovereignty over the territory.

If I were the Arab Muslim Palestinians, I'd be in a right awful hurry to make a treaty dividing the territory lest all be lost by Israel's superior ability to govern.


​

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

I am more and more convinced that your broad argument is legally viable while at the same time entirely at odds with your purpose of denying Jewish sovereignty. In other words, every argument you make to support the "Palestinian's" sovereignty over the entire territory is actually an argument which can EQUALLY be made to support the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty over the entire territory.

From the link:The phenomenon of occupation is currently defined as "the effective control of a power (be it one or more states or an international organization, such as the United Nations) over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory.

Since, as you argue, sovereignty is inherent in the people -- ALL of the peoples of "Palestine" have sovereign title to the territory. It is a legal condition of occupation to lack sovereignty over the territory. Since neither people lack sovereignty over the territory, neither people can be occupiers of the territory. Therefore, there can be no occupation of either people by the other people.

Thus, even without the CLEAR intent of the treaties to enforce the rights of the Jewish people to the re-constitution of their national homeland, Israel has every right to sovereignty over the territory.

If I were the Arab Muslim Palestinians, I'd be in a right awful hurry to make a treaty dividing the territory lest all be lost by Israel's superior ability to govern.


​

How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?

The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place. People from somewhere else have the right to sovereignty somewhere else.

The French have the right to sovereignty in France. The British have the right to sovereignty in Britain. The French have no right to sovereignty Britain.

What part of this confuses you?

 

[Shusha]

How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​

The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.

The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else. Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)

And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed. And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.

Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?

 

[Shusha]

Look, P F Tinmore

You can't have it both the ways you want to have it.

The Jewish people were (are) a people of the place. Denying that is just stupid.

Ethnic cleansing of a place either removes rights to sovereignty or it does not. You can't have it both ways. If it does not, then the Jewish people have a right to return to a place where they have always had rights to sovereignty. If it does, then ethnic cleansing is a viable (if not moral) way of transferring sovereignty from one people to another.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​

The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.

The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else. Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)

And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed. And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.

Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?

Actually, the Jews were from all over the place. Few, if any, had any ancestors from Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Actually, the Jews were from all over the place. Few, if any, had any ancestors from Palestine.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

• Even if this were true (and it is NOT), belonging to a "people" -- defining a "people" -- is not a function of biology whether that biology is skin tone, or eye color, or nose shape or the length of one's limbs or their genetic material. Defining a people is in defining whether someone self-identifies with a specific people or culture AND whether someone is recognized as belonging by that people or culture.
• Surely, you don't mean to suggest that everyone who wants sovereignty over the territory be subjected to a genetic testing to measure their percentage of ancestry from that territory?
• The origin of the Jewish people in Israel, in Judea, in Samaria is indisputable. To argue otherwise is simply ridiculous and seems to stem from an irrational hatred.
• This is, fundamentally, an excuse, like many that you give to deny the Jewish people the same rights that you demand others have.

 

[Phoenall]

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Your link is not valid as it is not accepted outside of the authors circle. It is not international law as you and they claim, it is what they want to see as international law.

Current international law says that 22% of palestine is for the Jewish national home, and it is not to be split and given to foreign interests. So why aren't you fighting for this REAL international law to be enacted in full and the islamonazi illegal immigrants deported from Israel and told to stay put



The LoN did not need to annexe any lands as the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne surmounted that criteria that you slip in because you have nothing else. The borders were clearly stated to those of the mandate of palestine, as no nation of palestine has ever existed. The palestinian people until 1960 were the Jews and they claimed soveriegnty of the land in 1948, the ara muslims claimed soveriegnty of trans Jordan in 1946.

Once again you attempt to use modern day international laws retrospectively and fail because it would mean you losing your land and property in America. Your Jew hatred is showing again and you will one day regret ever turning into a nazi scum when the world says enough id enough and starts arresting people like you

Pffffft, what a load of crap. All of that blabber and not one link.

You can't prove any one of your points.

You are not in a position to talk as you refuse to produce links to such things as the treaty that created palestine as a nation.

I answered your post with facts and because you cant argue against the facts you come out with your usual ducking and deflection. Have you read both treaties and seen where the ownership of the land was passed from the Ottomans to the LoN and then to the inhabitants. You are trying once again to use modern laws retrospectively and failing because you dont have the intelligence to understand you cant. In 1917, 1923 and 1924 they did not need to annexe the land after it was handed as reparations of war. I would advise you to look it up in context to the era and not your fantasy world.



Now when did the arab muslims legally acquire Jewish land, and who signed the resulting documents for them ?

 

[Phoenall]

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.

You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.

Which is so much closer to reality than your islamonazi version of history.

If as you claim there were no mandate borders then none of the nations could exist today. And you new POS islamonazi propaganda LIE is not worth the paper it is written on

 

[Phoenall]

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.

You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.

Actually, no. You have been spewing the Islamist politburo line regarding some invented international borders of some mythical place you call Pal'istan.

Obviously, you duck the question of who or what created the "international borders" of your mythical Pal'istan because you know your claim is indefensible.

Actually, history and the UN disagree with you.

Then produce the evidence for all to see, and not the link that says " this is the borders of the mandate of palestine herinafter to be referred to as palestine"

 

[Phoenall]

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination....Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.​

The right to sovereignty lies with a people. But the act of sovereignty requires control over a territory and a government to run it.​

Occupations don't count.

According to which international law, and your new link does not point to any international laws that actually exist so you need a new one

 

[Phoenall]

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

I am more and more convinced that your broad argument is legally viable while at the same time entirely at odds with your purpose of denying Jewish sovereignty. In other words, every argument you make to support the "Palestinian's" sovereignty over the entire territory is actually an argument which can EQUALLY be made to support the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty over the entire territory.

From the link:The phenomenon of occupation is currently defined as "the effective control of a power (be it one or more states or an international organization, such as the United Nations) over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory.

Since, as you argue, sovereignty is inherent in the people -- ALL of the peoples of "Palestine" have sovereign title to the territory. It is a legal condition of occupation to lack sovereignty over the territory. Since neither people lack sovereignty over the territory, neither people can be occupiers of the territory. Therefore, there can be no occupation of either people by the other people.

Thus, even without the CLEAR intent of the treaties to enforce the rights of the Jewish people to the re-constitution of their national homeland, Israel has every right to sovereignty over the territory.

If I were the Arab Muslim Palestinians, I'd be in a right awful hurry to make a treaty dividing the territory lest all be lost by Israel's superior ability to govern.


​

How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?

The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place. People from somewhere else have the right to sovereignty somewhere else.

The French have the right to sovereignty in France. The British have the right to sovereignty in Britain. The French have no right to sovereignty Britain.

What part of this confuses you?

The one that says illegal arab muslims immigrants have sovereignty over Israel because their god told them they owned the world. Once again you are using a modern concept retrospectively because you have no other arguments. You have had the truth from the moths of arab muslims saying that they are recent arrivals that have no links or ties to Israel. Yiou argue that they are palestinians under the UN 2 year rule, but deny the same rule to the Jews. Because the Jews got in first and claimed sovereignty of the land you cant alter the rules to kick them out and put the arab muslims in their place.

International laws and rights apply to the Jews just as much as they do to the arab muslims, and your witholding of these rights and laws show that you are not interested in a mutuallly agreed end to the problems, just the mass murder of the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​

The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.

The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else. Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)

And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed. And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.

Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?

Actually, the Jews were from all over the place. Few, if any, had any ancestors from Palestine.

And your evidence for this is which extremist white supremacist site ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Negotiations, Israeli settler colonialism, and the Palestinians

 

[Hollie]

Islamist colonialism.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jimmy Johnson - Israel: A Settler Colonial State?

 

[Hollie]

Settler colonial Pal'istanians are Egyptians

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Settler Colonial Mechanism in Function by Hanine Hassan

 

[Hollie]

Some history of Arab-Moslem colonialism.