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.
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
Once again you wrong.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.
You wrong, all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate are valid and irrevocable.:lamo
The Mandate has had no legitimacy for either side since 15th May 1948
You claim it has validity/legitimacy today
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
You wrong, all the rights which have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate are valid and irrevocable.
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.
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.
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. 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.
Wrong again.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.
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.
BS.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.
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.So it is just made up. Just continue to retreat until you find a position and when that fails retreat again.
After the invasion by the Third Reich, Jews had no legal right to live in Poland.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.
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.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.
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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?