• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Peace Plan

How do you work that out ?

At what point in time did the Palestinians have sovereign possession of any territories?

They didn’t, so your reference to going back to the last people who had legal possession doesn’t help you. It just gets us back to the mandate, whose express terms were to administer the territory for the purposes of facilitating close Jewish settlement of the land and creation of a Jewish National Home.

Which is exactly what we have now.

But of course, all of this is nonsense diversion, isn’t it. Cause the Palestinians are entitled to self determination on part of that territory and I support giving it to them once they are willing to make peace with the Jews and the Jewish State and demonstrate they won’t just keep up their fight for the “liberation of historic palestine”.

But you seem to think they should keep saying no until they get everything you think they are entitled to, using this nonsense “international law” gymnastics to support rejectionism.
 
At what point in time did the Palestinians have sovereign possession of any territories?

They didn’t, so your reference to going back to the last people who had legal possession doesn’t help you. It just gets us back to the mandate, whose express terms were to administer the territory for the purposes of facilitating close Jewish settlement of the land and creation of a Jewish National Home.

Which is exactly what we have now.

But of course, all of this is nonsense diversion, isn’t it. Cause the Palestinians are entitled to self determination on part of that territory and I support giving it to them once they are willing to make peace with the Jews and the Jewish State and demonstrate they won’t just keep up their fight for the “liberation of historic palestine”.

But you seem to think they should keep saying no until they get everything you think they are entitled to, using this nonsense “international law” gymnastics to support rejectionism.

The legality imo comes from the rejection of states being allowed to conquer territory through warfare. People should support that imo if they want to see or try to create a better world .

The Jewish people have their homeland in Palestine all's that is left is for the Palestinians to get theirs based on 67 lines as per international law. You know the mantra by now. AS for the liberation of historic Palestine there is pretty much no international support for it so it's highly unlikely that would happen
 
The legality imo comes from the rejection of states being allowed to conquer territory through warfare. People should support that imo if they want to see or try to create a better world .

The Jewish people have their homeland in Palestine all's that is left is for the Palestinians to get theirs based on 67 lines as per international law. You know the mantra by now. AS for the liberation of historic Palestine there is pretty much no international support for it so it's highly unlikely that would happen

So it is just made up. Just continue to retreat until you find a position and when that fails retreat again.

The Palestinians can have a state in most of the wb and gaza once they give up their war against the Jews. Maybe they end up in a confederation with Jordan, that would be up to them.

But the view that this is unacceptable unless the entire territory is cleansed of Jews and handed over to them is ridiculous, completely illogical, and not consistent with the law that you started out hanging you hat on (or this, but we will keep going round in circles so might as well move on)
 
No, you are wrong; only two Articles of the Mandate are guaranteed in perpetuity in the event of the Mandate terminating, which it did in 1948. Those Articles are #13 and #14 and have no bearing on your fictitious legal 'rights' over 'Judea and Samaria'. Here:

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read Article #28 and all will be made clear.
Once again you wrong.
When the UN established it preserve all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate. As I already told you, see UN charter article 80.

Please fail again.
 
Once again you wrong.
When the UN established it preserve all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate. As I already told you, see UN charter article 80.

Please fail again.

Sorry, you claimed the Mandate was still in force. It is not, except for two Articles which have nothing to do with your insistence that Israel has legal rights. Yes, the UN Article said Israel has a legal right, but that was when the Mandate was still in force. The Mandate expired in 1948, rendering ALL articles within it, other than the two I mentioned earlier, null and void. Furthermore, if you insist on pursuing this line, I guess the Article within the Mandate referring to ensuring that the rights of the existing occupants (Arabs), are to be preserved and respected, is something you would welcome-correct?
I'm guessing English is not your first language, otherwise this should have been crystal clear to all but the most myopic of zealots-like this bunch...

Settlers fabricate non-existent “eternal rights” - +972 Magazine
 
Last edited:
:lamo

The Mandate has had no legitimacy for either side since 15th May 1948

You claim it has validity/legitimacy today
You wrong, all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate are valid and irrevocable.
 
Sorry, you claimed the Mandate was still in force. It is not, except for two Articles which have nothing to do with your insistence that Israel has legal rights. Yes, the UN Article said Israel has a legal right, but that was when the Mandate was still in force. The Mandate expired in 1948, rendering ALL articles within it, other than the two I mentioned earlier, null and void. Fail again yourself.
I'm guessing English is not your first language, otherwise this should have been crystal clear to all but the most myopic of zealots-like this bunch...

Settlers fabricate non-existent “eternal rights” - +972 Magazine

Wrong again, I said the Mandate is still valid to this day, which is true, because the UN preserved this agreement, so it's still valid.

And of course you ignored my question, I guess you couldn't find any peace of evidence about the legal rights of the palestinian in Judea and Samaria.
 
You wrong, all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate are valid and irrevocable.

Yes, you keep convincing yourself of that. Jews have NO rights guaranteed because the Mandate granting any rights says nothing about 'in perpuity', even ignoring that the Mandate expired, along with all but TWO Articles guaranteed in perpetuity, in 1948. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
 
Wrong again, I said the Mandate is still valid to this day, which is true, because the UN preserved this agreement, so it's still valid.

And of course you ignored my question, I guess you couldn't find any peace of evidence about the legal rights of the palestinian in Judea and Samaria.

Nonsense. The Mandate EXPIRED IN 1948. Are you being deliberately obtuse? There is NOTHING ANYWHERE within the EXPIRED Mandate guaranteeing Jews rights in perpetuity. Of course you are welcome to cite exactly where within the Mandate these elusive rights are to be found.
 
Wrong again, I said the Mandate is still valid to this day, which is true, because the UN preserved this agreement, so it's still valid.

And of course you ignored my question, I guess you couldn't find any peace of evidence about the legal rights of the palestinian in Judea and Samaria.

Actually yes I could. Article 2 of the Mandate.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
 
Last edited:
You wrong, all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate are valid and irrevocable.

Utter crap. The Mandate no longer exists as a legally binding document except for TWO Articles guaranteed in perpetuity should the Mandate expire-which it did in 1948-neither of which say anything about Jewish rights, guaranteed or otherwise.
 
Nonsense. The Mandate EXPIRED IN 1948. Are you being deliberately obtuse? There is NOTHING ANYWHERE within the EXPIRED Mandate guaranteeing Jews rights in perpetuity. Of course you are welcome to cite exactly where within the Mandate these elusive rights are to be found.
The Mandate expired in 1948 but the UN preserved all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate. So it still valid to this day.
 
The Mandate expired in 1948 but the UN preserved all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate. So it still valid to this day.

Nonsense, otherwise why would the Mandate make a point of emphasising that only TWO Articles are guaranteed in perpetuity in the event of expiration? If the UN accepts the Mandate in total, then it also recognises that only those TWO Articles remain in force. Those Articles say nothing about Jewish rights.
 
Nonsense, otherwise why would the Mandate make a point of emphasising that only TWO Articles are guaranteed in perpetuity in the event of expiration? If the UN accepts the Mandate in total, then it also recognises that only those TWO Articles remain in force. Those Articles say nothing about Jewish rights.
Wrong again.
UN article 80 -
Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, 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.

The UN preserved ALL the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate.
 
Utter crap. The Mandate no longer exists as a legally binding document except for TWO Articles guaranteed in perpetuity should the Mandate expire-which it did in 1948-neither of which say anything about Jewish rights, guaranteed or otherwise.
BS.
You ignore the UN article 80 which preserved all the rights that have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate. Deal with it.
And still no answer about the palestinian legal rights...
 
So it is just made up. Just continue to retreat until you find a position and when that fails retreat again.
Exactly. The palestinians have no legal right in Judea and Samaria. I asked for an evidence about the legal rights of the palestinian in Judea and Samaria, and I got no answer.
 
Exactly. The palestinians have no legal right in Judea and Samaria. I asked for an evidence about the legal rights of the palestinian in Judea and Samaria, and I got no answer.
After the invasion by the Third Reich, Jews had no legal right to live in Poland.
 
No peace plan can work unless it means erasing the Islamic religion.

They have written orders from God to kill the Jews, and that is not going away.
 
After the invasion by the Third Reich, Jews had no legal right to live in Poland.

And after WWII ethnic Germans had no right to live in the Sudetenland. Even though there were millions of them and they had lived there for generations. And the subsequent expulsion killed. 2.5 million or so expelled (far more than the Palestinians displaced in their failed attempt to destroy Israel) and 250k or so killed.

These were all civilians who had lived there for Generations, in communities that went back to the 7th century or before.

And which the European court of justice has no problem with.

So spare us the hypocrisy and the disgusting antisemitism that makes you think jumping to a (****ty) nazi analogy is ok when talking to Jews about their sovereignty makes you anything but a little, little, morally warped person.
 
Last edited:
And after WWII ethnic Germans had no right to live in the Sudetenland. Even though there were millions of them and they had loved there for generations.

And which the European court of justice has no problem with.

So spare us the hypocrisy and the disgusting antisemitism that makes you think jumping to a (****ty) nazi analogy is ok when talking to Jews about their sovereignty makes you anything but a little, little, morally warped person.
I cannot make sense of your post, probably because you did not address what I had written about the Jews having no right to live in Poland according to occupation Third Reich law just as Palestinians have no right to live in parts of the West Bank according to Israeli occupation law. You say something about Germans from the Sudetenland being ethnically cleansed and this is the same thing. By pointing out the absurdity of Jews having no right to live in Poland according to the Third Reich I cannot be accused of being antisemitic. I am sure you misunderstood my post, unless I am antisemitic in the sense that anyone who criticizes the Israelis is so guilty. I maintain that criticism of Israel is important when the Palestinians are treated unjustly. It is bullying to attempt to gag people from criticism of Israel with a jaded threat of antisemitism.
 
I cannot make sense of your post, probably because you did not address what I had written about the Jews having no right to live in Poland according to occupation Third Reich law just as Palestinians have no right to live in parts of the West Bank according to Israeli occupation law. You say something about Germans from the Sudetenland being ethnically cleansed and this is the same thing. By pointing out the absurdity of Jews having no right to live in Poland according to the Third Reich I cannot be accused of being antisemitic. I am sure you misunderstood my post, unless I am antisemitic in the sense that anyone who criticizes the Israelis is so guilty. I maintain that criticism of Israel is important when the Palestinians are treated unjustly. It is bullying to attempt to gag people from criticism of Israel with a jaded threat of antisemitism.

No, it is that you decided on pushing the Nazi analogy on the Jews.

What you are presuming to condemn with a Nazi comparison is less than what the Europeans did to ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland with the mass expulsion (ie “no right to live there”) that resulted in mass casualties, and which was held to be 100% legal according to European law.

So we have a combo of European hypocrisy, double standards applied to the Jews, AND a quick jump by a typical anti-Israel European to go straight for the nazi comparison when speaking about the Jews.

Now I don’t really agree with the other poster. They do have a right to live there. And they have in my view a qualified right to self determination in some of that territory. But that’s too much nuance for a rabidly anti-Israel European leftist. Nothing short of accusing the Jews of being Nazis is sufficient for that sort of hater. Even though according to your law it was ok for Europe to do far worse to a far larger group of people. But your law isn’t meant to be applied consistently to the Jews, obviously. Plus ça change and all that
 
Last edited:
No, it is that you decided on pushing the Nazi analogy on the Jews.

What you are presuming to condemn with a Nazi comparison is less than what the Europeans did to ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland with the mass expulsion (ie “no right to live there”) that resulted in mass casualties, and which was held to be 100% legal according to European law. ....
The expulsion of Palestinians from their ancestral homeland to the West Bank and Gaza by immigrant European Jews is identical to the treatment of Sudeten Germans. Israelis today claim it was 100% legal. Not satisfied, the Zionists are doing the same nowadays in the West Bank, again perfectly legal according to Israeli law. They are sensitive about being aptly compared to the Nazis.
 
The expulsion of Palestinians from their ancestral homeland to the West Bank and Gaza by immigrant European Jews is identical to the treatment of Sudeten Germans. Israelis today claim it was 100% legal. Not satisfied, the Zionists are doing the same nowadays in the West Bank, again perfectly legal according to Israeli law. They are sensitive about being aptly compared to the Nazis.

No it isn’t. The Arabs were not expelled. There are very many living there today.

While populations were displaced by the war, numbers are not high compared to the many, many other conflicts during the first half of the 20th century. Good example is the India/Pakistan separation the year before.

And in any event you are now moving from your Nazi **** to the Sudetens, but I’m afraid that’s where you lose. Cause according to European law that expulsion (which again was far, far worse than the Arabs losing their fight against Israel’s existence) was perfectly 100% legal.

You can preen all you want. The hatred from lefty European indoctrination and propaganda seethes through your posts. A bunch of lies, distortions, half truths and double standards and a keen interest in saying hey look at those nazi jews over there.

So, to sum up, the displacement of Arabs in their failed attack on Israeli sovereignty in 1948 was similar to the many, many other separations of populations resulting from conflict in both the pre-wwii and post-wwii period.

The expulsion of the Sudetens was actually much different and worse as it involved a post-conflict systematic expulsion of a civilian population for actions of a foreign government when that government no longer existed and any legitimate threat had vanished. That action has been held to be legal by European courts.

In spite of all this, the first place you go is to tell a country built by holocaust survivors among others that they are all a bunch if nazis. There is a long history of anti-Jewish folks pushing nazi analogies on the Jews and israel, particularly from Europe.

Psychologists and other professionals have suggested this stems from, among other things, a desire to demonize the Jewish state to absolve Europeans of collective guilt for their past behaviour but I think that only worked for the first and maybe second generation of Europeans after the war. Now it is a function of the “education” and media narrative they fostered to indoctrinate the younger generations.

In any event, when faced with the Sudeten reality, you then say “yes, yes, I mean that the Jews are Nazis but that what they did was also what was done to the Sudeten Germans” even though (1) it wasn’t and (2) what Europe did to the Sudetens was 100% legal according to Europe. The double standard of why it is legal for Europe but not for Israel, which clearly faces a far more real existential threat from a fifth column than Czechoslovakia after the war, was never actually justified.

And of course what Israel has done is not even remotely equivalent to what Europe did to the Sudetens. So the grasping at straws as your arguments crumbled failed as well.

I would feel bad for you if your indoctrination and that of millions of other sad Europeans wasn’t so dangerous. On both this and the whole socialism thing, you need to start over. Like all the way over.
 
Back
Top Bottom