"I don’t get angry. It is a waste of energy."
You have your readers fooled with the rather angry looking photo of yourself, or perhaps the moon was full when that one was taken?
"Geneva conventions - The Arab States, representing the remainder of the non-state entity of Palestine (after Jordan and Israel declared Sovereignty over parts of it), the other Contracting Power, attested to by the ceasefire agreements, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties."
The Arab signatories of the armistice agreements were inside the borders of the Jewish National Home as belligerent aggressors, not as legitimate representatives of the local Arab people. None of the Arab states had legal jurisdiction over any portion of the territory of Palestine nor can they represent the people living there now. A High Contracting Party is defined as The representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty. Palestine is not a state, nor has it ever been a state. In situations where a State entity does not exist, a territory cannot legitimately be represented by a foreign or outer intervention, without a legal contract such as the Mandate for Palestine. Can you point to any contract to support your claim? Yes no? Further, can you cite case history where two or more High Contracting Parties share responsibility for the actions of individuals residing in an single amorphous territorial area? Can the hostile belligerents Egypt, Iraq, or Syria, for example, be held jointly libel for war crimes committed by the Arabs formerly residing in the territory mislabeled Palestine? Yes no? If not, and as you claim they are the High Contracting Party, aside from fanciful and confused imagination, why not?
"You cite a mandate that ended May 14th 1948."
You cite a Convention that did not exist on May 14th, 1948. I have stated that the rights established in the Mandate do not expire upon termination of the Mandate, perhaps you can explain what legal mechanism existed to show how the Convention you cling to is retroactive?
The transfer of authority over the Mandate went to Israel a few hours before it ended with a declaration of independence. It came into effect exactly at the moment the Mandate ended, one minute after midnight. The Mandatory authority accepted it without contest. Israel was born with a provisional government and provisional borders. The Arabs immediately launched an attempted genocide. The cease fire agreements from that genocide attempt ended with the illegal theft of a portion of the Jewish state. None of the Arab states objected to this situation for 19 years. Can you speculate as to why Arab Muslims had no problems with the land being held by Arab Muslims, but changed their tune when Jews properly liberated the occupied land in 1967 and gave those same oppressed Muslims freedoms they had never experienced in their lives such as a vote in municipal elections for women? If you think hard enough even you can recognize that the people you have deemed the victims are guilty of bigotry...hardly a cause rational people should reward.
"Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948"
A letter is not a binding contract or an authentic legislative act. It is a letter and nothing more. The letter only refers to UN 181, it does not claim UN 181 is the sole basis for the declaration, nor was the provisional state bound by a contract that was voided by the Arab belligerents. Is this clear? Even if we suspend belief for a moment and pretend it was a legitimate contract, it would have still been made null and void the moment when the Arabs refused to sign on. You dragging it up now is laughable and pathetic. I almost feel sorry for you clinging to this straw as your fragile argument is swept out to sea.
"On September 21 2006, the Israeli Ministry of Housing and Construction issued tenders to construct 164 new housing units in 3 Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Yes? No?"
A tender is a permit and a bid for work. Private contractors built the units with the approval of the Ministry of Housing. This is different from a government housing project built by the government. But the argument has no merit, because Jews have the legal right to settle there without prejudice.
"If it has no ’sovereign’. Then it is NOT Israeli either, because Israel is a SOVEREIGN state."
Not quite, the Mandate for Palestine established the legal right for Jews to settle in the land that was mislabeled Palestine. Attorney Howard Grief explains:
"Under the principle of acquired legal rights, though the international instrument upon which those rights were founded did indeed expire, the rights themselves conferred on the Jewish People remained in force. This principle of international law is now codified in Article 70(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties"
Consequences of the termination of a treaty
1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the
termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the
(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the
(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the
parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its
"Apart from illegal outposts, the issue is ISRAELI citizens, in territory which has not been legally annexed to Israel, in illegal settlements constructed under contracts issued by the Israeli Government which has illegally instituted it’s own Civil Law in a territory it has never legally annexed."
The Israeli Declaration of Independence explicitly mentions the entirety of Eretz Yisrael as the Homeland of the Jewish people. Eretz Israel means 'land' of Israel as determined by the Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia, not Medinat or 'state' of Israel. This fact is confirmed in the Law of Return, where the word Palestine is replaced with the word Israel, where Palestine appears in the language of the Mandate.
And as to your spurious charge of annexation, it is redundant. The Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920 defined the Jewish homeland. The legal boundary was accepted and confirmed into law with the binding obligation of the Mandate for Palestine on July 24, 1922. The General Assembly of the United Nations had no authority to alter the terms of the treaty and no 'suggestion' it made can be misconstrued as being binding or legal. Under Article 80 of the UN Charter and the doctrine of estoppal, the UN was bound to uphold the terms of the Mandate, the UN had no authority to change the terms or steal the rights of Jews to immigrate to their homeland.
"...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."In other words, member states were bound to respect the terms of the Mandate of Palestine, and upon its termination the right of Jews to immigrate until another binding agreement removes that right.
D)The territory of a non-sovereign and/or non-state entity, belongs to the entity.
Unless a state has a better claim and no functioning government exists in the territory. Can you show where jurisdictional ownership of a territory is defaulted to an ambiguous group of people based on race? And can you reference any legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of peoples based on race, this foundational document, for example, mentions the "Arab" race over 30 times. Does it upset you that your efforts are aimed at supporting racists? Didn't think so.
E) Geneva Conventions. The non-state entity of Palestine, is represented by the Arab states who are the other Contracting Power, attested to by the ceasefire agreements, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties.
Which you can show in unambiguous legal terms, yes no? Jordan and Israel set the international border between the two countries as the center of the Jordan river, is Jordan a High Contracting Party as you claim or not? What vehicle exists for the other Parties to agree on jurisdictional matters of a single territory? Do these multiple Parties have a council? Meetings? What foolishness, and you claim I am ignorant?
Japanese companies own land in Australia, they hold title to it. However, it is NOT Sovereign Japanese territory, it belongs equally (under Sovereignty) to every citizen of Australia, even if they are a homeless bum living under a bridge.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. Arabs may own some small amount of private property in Judea and Samaria, but it is NOT Sovereign Palestine territory. Did you give this much thought before you shot yourself in the foot?
The ‘title’ to territory of a Sovereign state is it’s Declaration of Sovereignty.
It is not that simple. I can get a hundred of my biker friends and declare sovereignty over the club house, but how far do you think that will go for us in court when we decide to legalize pot there? Northern Ireland still belongs to Britain regardless of the identity or sentiments of the majority of locals. Unlike the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians, the Kurds are even a unique people with a cultural identity that is tied to a geographic area, but they do not have a right to declare that parts of four countries be turned into a new sovereign nation.
As for possession, it is ILLEGAL to acquire territory by war/force. The only way a state may acquire more territory is by LEGAL annexation.
That is incorrect, but once again thank you for strengthening my case. A state may acquire more land as the result of a peace treaty. The propaganda mantra you are parroting is taken from UN 242, which inserted there to make it clear that Jordan held land west of the Jordan river illegally, not Israel. Nor are any fictitious peoples calling themselves Palestinians mentioned in the resolution, I would like to point out. However, you may be surprised to note that Jordan and Israel have concluded a peace treaty. The center of the Jordan river is the international border between the two states. Egypt and Israel have also concluded a peace treaty and the border is clear also, it lies south of Gaza. These are your High Contracting Parties legally representing the territory, no yes? You can explain the rejection of sovereignty by the PLO and the peace treaties establishing the international border betwen the two High Contracting Parties. Yes no?
The Arab States are (collectively) the other Contracting Party, attested to by the ceasefire agreements, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties. As a UN Member State, Israel is automatically obliged to the UN Charter & Laws of War (Both mandatory & without exception). The Geneva Conventions are extensions to the Laws of War.
Of course, you will be providing clear legal precedent establishing "collective" representation over a single territory that has an existing solid claim on it, in light of clear PLO rejection of sovereignty.
Israel is also obliged to the Geneva Conventions it ratified as a UN Member state, thereby obliging it to uphold those conventions from the moment it ratified them, “in all circumstances”.
And so it has as of 1951, long after the so called refugees were formed...
Art. 2. ….
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.
The relevant portion you seem to have forgotten to share from Article 2 is this...
"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."You will be pointing out the other High Contracting Party since it clearly requires two or more of them for this Convention to apply to, yes no? Or will you be fabricating another elaborate case built of straw that the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians were somehow recognized as a unique people in 1948, or as a State there after, or even as a political entity in 1967 after the Geneva Conventions applied?
The Arab states representing the non-state entity of Palestine were the other High Contracting Parties, attested to by the ceasefire agreements, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties.
And you will be forthwith on clarifying the issues I have mentioned above, yes no? How many times have you mentioned this fallacy now? We can boil the majority of your argument down to just a few false assumptions I think.
A declaration of Sovereignty IS binding and READ what ISRAEL SAID
I hereby declare sovereignty over the club house. I base this on Talknic's interpretation of the way things work.
Everything you have written about the British Mandate over Palestine is irrelevant. I shan’t address any more of your ‘Mandate’ assertions other than to say the Mandate ENDED BEFORE Israel Declared Sovereignty.
Shan't you? You apparently do not wish to be taken seriously then. You have your facts wrong even on a minor detail above though. Israel declared independence BEFORE the Mandate ended. WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)
Their ’stated goal’ is in the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15, 1948.
Of course. The Arab League declaration of war. Lip service so as not to provoke the world into trying to prevent the genocide that was intended. No doubt a Brit had a heavy hand in the drafting as a Brit was leading the Arab army on a "war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
A) Israel had the Mediterranean.
Yes, they could have been thrown into the sea. This genocidal sentiment you share with your support of racist bigots that have created a society of Jew murderers not seen since the 1930s is exactly why Jews need a sanctuary called Israel today more than ever. And it is exactly why I am here ridiculing your pathetic propaganda that only gives comfort to genocidal criminals needing a smoke screen to hide their true desires. You should be ashamed of yourself instead of being irrationally angry at the Jews.
B)The Mandate ENDED BEFORE Israel Declared Sovereignty.
Check your sources.
The Arab States representing the Palestinians are the other High Contracting Parties.
Another reference to multiple representation, hmmm. Because you say it is so? How does multiple jurisdiction work any way? How often do they convene to hash out their internal differences?
They are an obligation voluntarily accepted by the ratifier/signatory. They’re not signed between countries. If they were signed between countries, they’d have to be signed simultaneously and contain the other country/ies names and signatures. They don’t.
True, but non signatories and illegal militiamen are not afforded full protections. There are basic human rights for terrorists, but no more. Nor has Israel ratified the additional protocols that give terrorists an advantage and politicize some mythical "right of return".
The Palestinians are represented by the Arab STATES. This is attested to by ALL the ceasefire, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties.
You sound like a broken record stuck on something inaudible. This seems to be the bed rock (straw) of much of your argument. I am giddy with excitement hoping you will attempt to define this representation in legal terms.
In one part it says only area. In the other part it differentiates, they cannot be permanently displaced outside the territory.
If the Convention applied they could be displaced until they cease their aggression. The Convention does not apply though. That is clear.
“Further, upon the breach of contract that terminated the Mandate, the Geneva Convention of 1949 was not in effect and can not be applied retroactively.”
A) The Laws of War were in effect, applicable un-conditionally to ALL states, without exception.
Israel was a provisional state with provisional borders. What body of law prevented the Jews from defending themselves from being murdered by your Arab friends, though? The point of applying the Geneva Convention is to somehow discriminate against Jews by criminalizing the act of living in their own homeland. If you say they violated a law, point to it. The Geneva Convention was not applicable in 1948. You will have to do much better than waving your hand and pretending to know something you are actually quite ignorant of. Nor has Israel even ratified the Hague Resolutions, so please point to what Law of War the State of Israel violated, let alone the pre-state of Israel under British authority? The territory passed from Britain to Israel when Britain failed in its duty to create a functioning Jewish state.
B) Furthermore Israel agreed to the Geneva Conventions Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Israel Signature 08.12.1949
Great, but it wasn't ratified until 1951, what is your point? There is no right of return that applies to the hostile Arabs of 1948, most of which left of their own free will and have no right of invading the state of Israel. There is a demand to do so, now that they have failed in massacring the Jews there, and nothing more. Nor were the Arabs citizens of a State of their own to be returned to. Choosing violence has consequences. How many refugees would have been formed if the Arabs had chosen peace? If you think about it hard enough, even you might see that the number would have been much smaller, say around...zero. So who is responsible for their predicament?
“The last binding document before the Mandate was the San Remo Resolution, which established that all of Palestine territory was to become a Jewish National home.”
A) Where does it say “all of Palestine territory was to become a Jewish National home” You CAN quote it? Yes?
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. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
You CAN quote the area excluded to Jews? Yes? If not, then it means ALL of Palestine, including Arab Palestine east of the Jordan.
A) It is not necessary for states to recognize annexation, because it is between two parties, the annexing party and the annexed party. Only they need agree. This is usually done via a treaty or agreement. It is illegal to unilaterally annex territory.
Then you will quote the treaty between either Britain or Israel and Jordan that allowed the unilateral annexation of this portion of the Jewish homeland?
B) Show me the UNSC resolution calling Jordan’s annexation, as a trustee per the UN Charter, at the request of the Palestinians, illegal.
The UNSC has no authority to create international law nor to make any resolution binding on any nation. All participation at the UN and its decisions is voluntary. If you are wishing to claim Jordan has legal title over any land west of the Jordan river then I would like to point your attention to the treaty that established the international border between Israel and Jordan as the center of the river. Jordan did not annex the land as a trustee either. It annexed the land unilaterally, which coincidentally you just mentioned is illegal.
C) The annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980
A UN resolution does not make it legal or not, nor was it even a formal annexation. None is needed. Civil law was extended there only. Nothing else.
D) Israel’s ILLEGAL annexation is not even recognized by two countries.
What annexation? And what happened to your grand statement that "It is not necessary for states to recognize annexation," even if it were? Would you agree with me that Jew hatred warps a person's mind? Applying a double standard is a clear sign of bigotry, not that I am surprised since you champion bigots, mind you.
A) Not ISRAELI settlement.
See Vienna Convention on Treaties
B) the Mandate ENDED BEFORE Israel Declared Sovereignty.
Check your sources, the declaration clearly refers to the ending of the Mandate, which confirms you are a liar or ignorant even on small details, as usual. Since you are being shown to be categorically wrong I have to assume the former.
C) Israeli Sovereignty is per the borders of UNGA res 181 which it accepted when it Declared Sovereignty and anything it might have LEGALLY annexed. Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory.
No annexation is necessary and UN 181 is a non-binding irrelevance.
They’re YOUR words. Their words are a statement in which they recognize the fact: that the Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.
Then we agree that the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians have no vested interest in trying to create a state there now. Or was it OK when Arab Muslims held the land, but somehow different now that Jews are there? We call that bigotry and racism where I come from, and sane people do not reward bigots or racists by bending rules, fabricating histories, entertaining nonsensical fantasy, and creating straw arguments to support their racist views. Are you denying that the PLO, which has been recognized as the representative of the Arabs suddenly calling themselves Palestinians, clearly states they do not recognize "territorial sovereignty" over the land you (years later) claim is occupied? Doesn't this strike directly at the heart of your argument? The Arab locals, in their own words do not claim the territory, and the annexation by Jordan was illegal. Meanwhile, Israel's claim to the land has remained unchanged. A rational observer, which you are obviously not, demands consistency and legitimacy. I publicly challenged one of the best Arab spokesmen, Afif Safieh, on this very issue and all he could stammer on about was that "aspirations change, politics are fluid"...sure, Safieh, and reasonable men understand that killing over a border should have legitimacy that transcends race and religion. Obviously in the case of the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians this simple test of legitimacy has been failed and discarded by the pseudo-intelligentsia in favor of political expediency.
They’re not the borders between Israel and the non-state entity of Palestine. It’s the border between Israel and Jordan, which of course followed Jordan’s pre-Israel border. The peace agreement is between Jordan and Israel. Not Israel and the non-state Palestinian entity.
Either Jordan is the High Contracting Party or not. You seem confused. And what about the thousands of Arabs that were born between 1948 and 1967 with Jordanian birth certificates? If the borders of a country shift shouldn't the citizens of that country shift with them?
The UNSC says otherwise. It is illegal to acquire territory by war/force. Unilateral annexation is illegal.
The UN does not create international law. And the resolution you are referring to is UN 242, which states that land can not be acquired by force. This is a caution to Jordan and Egypt that invaded the Jewish homeland and took part of it by force then unilaterally annexed it, as you point out is illegal, (can you cite relevant law for this statement anyway, the UNSC is not good enough?).
“In order to define an occupation you must be able to define where it starts and stops.”
At actual Sovereign borders. In Israel’s case, the borders it accepted when it declared Sovereignty! READ what ISRAEL SAID
I did, and it said nothing of where its provisional borders were other than to reference a non-binding agreement in the vaguest of terms. Obviously your murderous Arab friends did not agree to ANY Jews living on Muslim claimed land so the contract was voided to all except you and whatever ridiculous Arab propaganda you have been parroting.
A) I didn’t say a political entity. The Ottomans called it Palestine. The British Mandate over Palestine contains the name PALESTINE.
Can you reference an "official" Ottoman map calling it Palestine? They held it for 400 years. Didn't think so.
B) Whether it was a political entity or not is irrelevant. No political entity called Israel existed before May 14th 1948.
Really? Jerusalem has been a Jewish capital for 3,300 years. What were the Israelites, Judea, the kingdom of Israel and all the thousands of years old connection stuff? Is it a myth designed to just steal some random plot of land that the oh so unfortunate Arabs happen to be the victim of? You make it sound as if a cabal of Jews threw a dart at a world map and decided to steal wherever the dart struck home. The Jewish people confine their homeland to one very small place on earth, they have thousands of years of customs, culture, and a unique language that is tied directly to their homeland. The Arabs are invaders from Arabia and the center of their religion is Mecca. Jews looked to their homeland and prayed every day for two thousand years of exile because people like you deny them their rights as a people.
It was renamed Palestina by the Romans in an attempt…etc etc etc..blah blah blah…..”
That was not the question. Try answering the question.
Blah, blah, blah? That just about sums up your intellectual capacity. First of all the syntax of your question leads me to believe a 10 year old wrote it. You may rephrase it or try understanding the answer, even someone as confused and full of hate like yourself can see what happened in history and the relevance to today. Blah, blah blah is aptly applied to the Talknic web site along with a heavy dose of ha ha ha.
Even as late as the UN 242 language there is no mention of the so called “Palestinians”.”
Why would it. UNSC resolution was between the Arab STATES and the STATE of Israel.
UN 242 was a suggestion on what to do with the land. It stands to reason that if the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians were a legitimate political entity at the time they would have been mentioned. Very pointedly they are not. Unbiased, rational people question this ommission in light of the Arabs that are murdering Jews supposedly over land. If this mythical people existed as a political entity or had a legitimate legal claim they would have been mentioned as they suddenly are now for political purposes only. It is very clear that the Arabs have murdered, hijacked, bombed, and destroyed their way into the spot light. Without Munich, the Achille Lauro, the Dolphinarium, and places like the Sabarro Pizzeria they would not have any recognition. Obviously their legal claim was not enough to stand on its own and it is relevant in light of the foundational document of the PLO denying territorial jurisdiction over the current disputed land and the back drop of head line grabbing terror. Stooges such as yourself are a relatively new phenomenon born of desperation, ignorance, and Jew hatred.
From the fall of the Ottoman Empire it has been known as Palestine. The British Mandate over PALESTINE seems to have PALESTINE in the name of the Mandate over Palestine (can you spot it?)
Calling Judea or Israel 'Palestine' was a political move designed to appease racist Arabs. The name hadn't been used since the fall of the Roman empire. Christian crusaders and others used the Anglican version of the Latin Palestina informally, but the land was not known as Palestine in any official capacity until a Brit revived it for political purposes.
As to your maps, what are you showing? A few dots to represent where the Jews owned private property..etc etc etc etc…”
Private, corporate and institutionally owned land is NOT Sovereignty.
Correct, so the 6% of the land privately owned by the Arabs is what? I don't see the dot map for their sparse homes. Was that intentional lying? Wouldn't it be accurate to show a dot map with the 6% of the territory owned by the Arabs alongside the one showing the 8% owned by Jews? tsk, tsk, tsk. And actually, who is concerned about a racial majority except for racists?
“Perhaps you can tell me where Israel’s declared and internationally recognized sovereignty legally exists. Yes?”
The fact is you spout nonsense. READ what ISRAEL SAID
That was not what I asked. Try answering the question.
A declaration of Sovereignty IS binding.
Can you point to the exact border clarification in the declaration? A vague reference to a non-binding, worthless suggestion does not cut it, unless you can present precedence or case history to support your idiotic claim?
I didn’t say “give”, save your bullshite for somewhere else. Israel accepted the conditions and declared Sovereignty under the conditions, therefore the conditions are bound by Israel’s Declaration of Sovereignty.
You can cite exactly what these conditions were with boundary references in the document itself then? Yes no? The declaration itself was not a legislative act. It was also drafted BEFORE the state of Israel was formed. How can a country be bound by something created before the country was constituted? It was an announcement to the world by the Jewish people listing reasons for renouncing its ties to the Mandatory Power, nothing else and no force of law can be enacted on its text. It should be viewed as a preamble to a body of laws, which were drafted later under the PROVISIONAL government, but understand that a preamble has no power, no authority, and no force. For example, what would have been the consequence had the Arabs won? What would have been their punishment and under what authority?
The US Declaration of Independence is not a body of law either. It is a statement of the will of the people before a functioning government or legislative body was created.
"lawyers generally and the Supreme Court in particular, have been reluctant to treat the Declaration as part of American Organic Law, or even to accord it the restricted status of the Preamble to the constitution."
SOURCE: The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Kermit Hall, editor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 223.
A) Only if an entity was a state at the time of the League of Nations. Israel wasn’t.
You are obviously way over your head. The resolution was in 1947, Israel was reconstituted in 1948, but the Mandate for Palestine was binding in 1947. The UN had no legal authority to change its terms. The defunct suggestion had no weight of law behind it whatsoever. Forget the resolution, it is of no bearing legally on anything. You are clinging to it because if you let go your entire argument crumbles like a house of cards, and you realize this. That makes you a liar and a desperate one at that.
UNGA adopted to put forward a set of recommendations, Res 181, which, if accepted by either party, bound them to their Declaration of Sovereignty, IF they chose to make one. Their Declaration, if they made one, is the contract.
That is bullshit. It would not hold up in any court. There are three parts of a contract: offer, acceptance and consideration. Think hard and let me know if the Arabs got past the second part. If they did not there was no contract and you can not return 60 years later after you have gone to war and lost saying, oh yeah, we want to agree with the terms since you were willing to agree to them before we tried to annihilate you. All the referencing in the world to 181 well not make it enforceable or binding under any legal system I have ever studied. Unless you can cite litigation I can review? Yes no? Further, the UN had no authority to alter the Mandate for Palestine or to stand in as a party to a contract between either the Arabs or the Jews. Capiche? The UN is not a party to what would have been the contract.
A) You’ve not refute one part of my alleged ‘fragile narrative’. All you have done is repeat the common fallacies and propaganda, providing no substantiation.
I await the proofs I have requested then. I am laughing and giddy with excitement as I type.
B) It is not my cornerstone. It is actually the cornerstone of ISRAEL’s Declaration of Sovereignty. Which is why there are so many UNSC resolutions against Israel.
That is more bullshit. The many UN reolutions against the Jews are because there are 55 members of the OIC, they dominate 2 of the 5 regional groups, and they have most of the oil. Any more questions on the number of hostile resolutions against the only Jewish state in the world, a state with zero natural resources to offer?
C) READ! and save your stupid accusations.
I would like to READ you explaining your stupid assumptions, but I won't hold my breath.
It isn’t disputed. It’s supported by both British White papers, the League of Nations Charter and the United Nations Charter.
When I quote someone I am prepared to authenticate the words. Can you authenticate the words you claim Balfour wrote? It would be hard to dispute something nonexistent, yes no? For example, see above where I quote source, book, and page number, common practice.
All citizens of British Mandate Palestine were Palestinian. ALL their papers were stamped PALESTINE!
Does that mean the Arabs were a unique people with unique customs, language, and history? In the early Mandate period a Palestinian was understood to be a Jew in discussion. The Arabs did not wish to be known as Palestinian until they adopted the name as a fig leaf to hide their naked hatred and aggression against the Jews with.
“The White Paper you site also contains language that offers the Arabs a state of their own”
Put it up. Should be easy to QUOTE.
IE., the whole of Palestine east of the Jordan will be an Arab state and we will steal this portion from the Jews whether they like it or not, which is exactly what the British did within a few weeks when 2000 armed Arabs invaded and took over (The British had about 50 police officers to oppose this). Arab Palestine was created and Jews were barred from purchasing land, even in existing Jewish communities east of the Jordan.
"This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge."
Tch tch tch. There is no need to LIE here. This is what you said, verbatim…..” The Arab side rejected the document and chose war over a peaceful resolution. So there was no “international recognition” as you claim.”
Recognition of borders. Your original lie was that the world recognized the provisional state of Israel's borders. I realize you have low comprehension, but I said clearly..."I am not referring to the Arab rejection of Israel. I am referring to your false claim that the world recognized a border". A fixed border bound to the voided suggestion, UN 181.
” Maybe you think you are clever or have an iron clad argument. Yes? Something tells me you are in for frustration in the coming days.”
See all of the above.
Yes, see all of the above, must of the above you wrote is a pile of shit. Multiple Powers representing a single territory, pre-state declarations being binding law, being held to unsigned contracts years later, UN having jurisdictional authority as if we live in the new world order, misunderstanding basic principles of law, etc..
Most likely they walk away shaking their head in dis-appointment that a grown man’s thinking has been permeated with a whole mess of hogwash. Your parrot like propaganda, foolish lies and false accusations, just doen’t cut the mustard. They only show folk how stubborn you are.
Since you have yet to prove a single word I have written is a lie, you sound pretty bitter mumbling under your breath while wearing egg on your face.
How sad that you can waste so much effort promoting propaganda and never learning anything. Even more of a pity, that like so many whose whole premise is based on propaganda and fallacies, it would ALL crumble if you were to admit to anything.
It is cheap to charge that I am basing on propaganda when you know so little of law and history.
Even more of a pity, that your stubborn refusal to accept facts only makes the problem even more irretractable.
The shame is that stooges such as yourself support racism, bigotry, and blind ignorance instead of standing on principles of decency and justice.