Re land purchase by bullying, bribery and dishonesty, where is your evidence for this claim?
Re the right to take the whole country, I refer you to this extract
“In international law, there is a principle in international law referred to as Uti Possidetus Juris, literally translating to “as you possess,” a Roman legal doctrine first cited …
Re land purchase by bullying, bribery and dishonesty, where is your evidence for this claim?
Re the right to take the whole country, I refer you to this extract
“In international law, there is a principle in international law referred to as Uti Possidetus Juris, literally translating to “as you possess,” a Roman legal doctrine first cited in private municipal law.
Uti Possidetus Juris maintains that when a new country is created where there was not a separate country previously, the borders of the new country are identical to the borders of the last top-level geopolitical entity in that territory. Professor Kontorovich illustrated this concept with the example of Crimea, which the international community regards as currently occupied by Russia but truly part of Ukraine. The reason for this international consensus is that Ukraine declared independence upon the dissolution of the USSR–the last top geopolitical entity in the territory–thus taking on boundaries that included within it the newly-constituted independent Ukraine.
In May 1948, Israel declared its independence, meaning that by the accepted legal principle of Uti Possidetis Juris, the new state inherited the same borders as Mandatory Palestine, which came before it, specifically the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It is important to note that Palestine did not declare statehood when Israel did. Instead, they willingly handed their fate to invading armies of a combined Arab force drawn from neighboring states. If the Palestinians had declared independence, then the two forces would have fought for the power to govern the new state with borders set by the mandate. However, that legal fight for governance never materialized. Therefore, when we apply the rule of international law that is used to determine the borders of all new countries, Israel must be recognized as the only successor entity to the mandate.”
Are you genuinely interested in evidence where the Zionists stole the land of the Palestinians that fled due to the pograms and violence visited upon them by the irgun, for example?? So you see no evidence in the history books that supports the fact that the Palestinians that were driven out of their villages were NOT allowed to return and that their homes and land were illegally given to the European Jews??
You need evidence for that? Ok, sure. Read Ilan Pape, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, amongst others.
Well said. Since we have thousands of years of historical records and images for Palestinians in Palestine, and we know Israel was invented in Palestine nearly 80 years ago, logic decrees that Israel sits in the land of Palestine and everything Israelis say is theirs actually belongs to Palestinians. It has all been stolen.
We also know that since 530 Palestinian towns and villages were wiped from the face of the earth by Zionist forces in 47/48 that logically, a lot of Palestinians were exterminated or expelled. Israel has built and planted over the ruins but we know where they are because they remain marked on British mandate maps and even more ancient maps of Palestine.
Re the right to take the whole country, I refer you to this extract
“In international law, there is a principle in international law referred to as Uti Possidetus Juris, literally translating to “as you possess,” a Roman legal doctrine first cited in private municipal law.
So you are saying because Jews have bought land in any country they have a right to take the entire country as their own?
You said: Uti Possidetus Juris maintains that when a new country is created where there was not a separate country previously, the borders of the new country are identical to the borders of the last top-level geopolitical entity in that territory.
BUT THERE WAS A SEPARATE COUNTRY AND THAT COUNTRY WAS CALLED PALESTINE AND HAD BEEN FOR MORE THAN 5000 YEARS.
That gazumps your silly rules spewed up by the bot.
However, since Israel has no declared borders it does not exist and the only country which does exist is Palestine. Also, since the Zionist invasion of 1947 following the UN recommendation for partition has not abided by the UN recommendation then that UN mandate is null and void. More important, the UN, League of nations and Lord Balfour had no legal right to partition any country on earth so the 1947 UN recommendation was not just immoral it was illegal. LET'S TEST IT IN A COURT OF LAW SHALL WE?
Re land purchase by bullying, bribery and dishonesty, where is your evidence for this claim?
Re the right to take the whole country, I refer you to this extract
“In international law, there is a principle in international law referred to as Uti Possidetus Juris, literally translating to “as you possess,” a Roman legal doctrine first cited in private municipal law.
Uti Possidetus Juris maintains that when a new country is created where there was not a separate country previously, the borders of the new country are identical to the borders of the last top-level geopolitical entity in that territory. Professor Kontorovich illustrated this concept with the example of Crimea, which the international community regards as currently occupied by Russia but truly part of Ukraine. The reason for this international consensus is that Ukraine declared independence upon the dissolution of the USSR–the last top geopolitical entity in the territory–thus taking on boundaries that included within it the newly-constituted independent Ukraine.
In May 1948, Israel declared its independence, meaning that by the accepted legal principle of Uti Possidetis Juris, the new state inherited the same borders as Mandatory Palestine, which came before it, specifically the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It is important to note that Palestine did not declare statehood when Israel did. Instead, they willingly handed their fate to invading armies of a combined Arab force drawn from neighboring states. If the Palestinians had declared independence, then the two forces would have fought for the power to govern the new state with borders set by the mandate. However, that legal fight for governance never materialized. Therefore, when we apply the rule of international law that is used to determine the borders of all new countries, Israel must be recognized as the only successor entity to the mandate.”
Are you genuinely interested in evidence where the Zionists stole the land of the Palestinians that fled due to the pograms and violence visited upon them by the irgun, for example?? So you see no evidence in the history books that supports the fact that the Palestinians that were driven out of their villages were NOT allowed to return and that their homes and land were illegally given to the European Jews??
You need evidence for that? Ok, sure. Read Ilan Pape, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, amongst others.
Well said. Since we have thousands of years of historical records and images for Palestinians in Palestine, and we know Israel was invented in Palestine nearly 80 years ago, logic decrees that Israel sits in the land of Palestine and everything Israelis say is theirs actually belongs to Palestinians. It has all been stolen.
We also know that since 530 Palestinian towns and villages were wiped from the face of the earth by Zionist forces in 47/48 that logically, a lot of Palestinians were exterminated or expelled. Israel has built and planted over the ruins but we know where they are because they remain marked on British mandate maps and even more ancient maps of Palestine.
You said:
Re the right to take the whole country, I refer you to this extract
“In international law, there is a principle in international law referred to as Uti Possidetus Juris, literally translating to “as you possess,” a Roman legal doctrine first cited in private municipal law.
So you are saying because Jews have bought land in any country they have a right to take the entire country as their own?
You said: Uti Possidetus Juris maintains that when a new country is created where there was not a separate country previously, the borders of the new country are identical to the borders of the last top-level geopolitical entity in that territory.
BUT THERE WAS A SEPARATE COUNTRY AND THAT COUNTRY WAS CALLED PALESTINE AND HAD BEEN FOR MORE THAN 5000 YEARS.
That gazumps your silly rules spewed up by the bot.
However, since Israel has no declared borders it does not exist and the only country which does exist is Palestine. Also, since the Zionist invasion of 1947 following the UN recommendation for partition has not abided by the UN recommendation then that UN mandate is null and void. More important, the UN, League of nations and Lord Balfour had no legal right to partition any country on earth so the 1947 UN recommendation was not just immoral it was illegal. LET'S TEST IT IN A COURT OF LAW SHALL WE?