Wouldn't you love to see that happen.
David

It seems to me that David (Singer)’s article accepts that ultimately the legitimacy of the modern state of Israel comes from decisions made after WWI by the international community. While he does mention the Balfour Agreement, he does not mention that the Palestinian people themselves at that time rejected the Balfour Agreement and have continued to do so ever since.

To me it’s simple: it is the inhabitants of a country who confer legitimacy … not world powers.

Trump will handle it.

#Gary

There was no "Palestinian people" at the time of the Balfour Declaration. The people living in "Palestine" were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and had been for 400 years.

The Mandate for Palestine document clearly distinguished between Jews and "the existing non- Jewish communities" in Palestine.

The 51 member nations of the League of Nations respectfully disagreed with your opinion and conferred international legitimacy on the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in their biblical and ancient Homeland.

Get over it and get on with life...

Ah, to be sure! I agree with you 100% David. There was not a Palestinian people! Just like the Irish people didn’t exist back there during Easter, 1916?

Moshe Dayan said that ways had to be found of living with the Arabs. Jews couldn’t overcome the hatred and hostility of the Arabs, he said... living together couldn’t be achieved “by Phantoms and Centurions”. The task according to Dayan, was “...how to live together [...] with the Arabs, without mastering them, without imposing yourself on them”.

Of course Dayan’s were the thoughts of the conqueror.

I remember hearing him admit that he/they took Palestine by force of arms.

Mao said something like ‘power grows out of the barrel of a gun’. I would say to you, David, that ‘legitimacy’ does not.

Have a Happy Easter, David – Garry.

#Garry

Israel was attacked by force of arms after six Arab States illegally invaded the newly declared State of Israel in Palestine with the intent of driving the Jews living there into the sea. Israel repelled that invasion by force of arms.

Israel's legitimacy was created by the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter

More memory lapses Garry or are you engaging in deliberate attempts to deceive and mislead?

I agree with Garry: the legitimacy of any grouping of people is gained by their moral conduct.
It can also be lost if they turn their backs to morality.
In any case, what have the declarations of others to do with one's legitimacy or otherwise?

And Dear Garry, Moshe Dayan was a very immoral person, an antique-robber whose real motivation in the 1967 occupation was to conquer antique-rich lands so he can increase his (illegal) backyard antique collection. He was never interested in Arabs or Jews, only in treasures. http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-the-defense-minister-who-stole-antiquities-1.5378810

Now as for the people who now call themselves "Palestinians", they only began to identify themselves as such in the 1970's.
Nevermind, now they say that they want to have their own state and any group of people who live in a contiguous stretch of land should be able to have their independence if so they wish, provided that their land will not be used to attack their neighbours. The problem is, that the "Palestinians" seem to currently be unable to live in peace with their neighbour, Israel.

"There was no 'Palestinian people' at the time of the Balfour Declaration. The people living in "Palestine" were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and had been for 400 years."

"The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy. ... By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. "

Are you saying that because of Israel's right to declare itself a nationalist apartheid state that the rights enshrined under the UN charter don't apply to people living anywhere that Israel declares is within its borders?

Well if that's what your saying, then you're full of shite mate.
Those rights existed in 1945 before the State of Israel did came into existence.

And the Balfour declaration you so often play like a broken violin clearly states "...It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may predjudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

What do you think were dumb?
Illiterate?
That we'll just keep coming back for more of the crap you spoon feed us without checking?

How do you think it is that you can establish a 'Jewish state' without predjudicing the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities living there?

What are you mentally challenged or something?

Your Balfour Declaration is worthless in my opinion.
- Like trying to argue for the old testament when the rest of the world moved onto the new testament.

The right to self determination David.
Try to remember that next time you quote the UN.

And by the way, anti-semitic would mean the arabs wouldn't it, since they are semitic people and well, the Ashkenazi Jews arent are they?

And you can stick your Anti-Zionism is Anto-Semitism crap too.
No government on the planet is free from criticism.

Seems we have a different understanding of what constitutes ‘legitimacy’, David. Mandates and UN articles in my book don’t create legitimacy when they are imposed on people against their will.

Your questioning whether I’ve made “deliberate attempts to mislead and deceive” is a quite a surprise. Still, if your question was based on anything that I’ve written, then you are free to identify such material. Same goes for the ‘more memory lapses’ of mine. I must be in a bad way … I can’t even remember what they were.

Have a nice day, David.

It was all based on Biblical bullsh1t anyway.
David

Dear David,

«It was all based on Biblical bullsh1t anyway.»

That would have been nice, but the leaders in question do not in fact follow the teachings of the bible, they only use it as pretext for their nationalism. The bible sets conditions for owning the land, conditions which are largely unmet! Israeli leaders seem to selectively only believe in the book of Joshua (which is about the conquest of the land by the Israelites upon returning from Egypt)!

#Gary

You are at it again:
"Seems we have a different understanding of what constitutes ‘legitimacy’, David. Mandates and UN articles in my book don’t create legitimacy when they are imposed on people against their will."

The Mandate was created in 1920. The UN was created in 1945.

The "Palestinians" were created in 1964 when the PLO Charter came into being

More attempts to deceive and mislead.

Give up mate.

I found this in Wikipedia:

“A Palestinian can mean a person who is born in the geographical area known prior to 1948 as Palestine, or a former citizen of the Mandatory Palestine, or an institution related to either of these. Before the establishment of Israel, the meaning of the word Palestinian didn't discriminate on ethnic grounds, but rather referred to anything associated with the region...”
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_Palestinian ]

It expresses a view similar to mine, but apparently at odds with your view, David.

By the way, I would prefer it if you would spell my name correctly when you use it.

I’d also prefer that you did not characterise my online comments as attempts to “mislead” and “deceive”. Such characterisation seems a reflection on me personally, rather than on the opinion/s that I’ve sought to express. I’d prefer you not to make such comments, but rather, that you accept that I’m posting online my honest views which I believe to be based on facts/truth. I would be (to an extent!) happy for you to refer to my opinions as ‘misguided’, but trust you will abandon the ‘attempt to mislead’ style of response.

I did not find your: Mandate (1920), UN (1945) and PLO Charter (1964) dates to be of use. It was interesting to read the PLO Charter (I hadn’t done so before) but did not find anything in it which supported your (unstated but apparent) premise that the term ‘Palestinian’ can only be used in respect of people from Palestine after 1964.

You will find, David, a further link within that given above. It contains this passage:

“Palestinians
“Although anyone with roots in the land that is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is technically a Palestinian, the term is now more commonly used to refer to Arabs with such roots. Palestinian nationalism, as distinguished from Arab nationalism, did not emerge until after World War I. Most of the world's Palestinian population is concentrated in Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan, although many Palestinians live in Lebanon, Syria and other Arab countries.”
[ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/glossary-p ]

Garry

Why did you choose to omit quoting the whole of the second sentence from Wikipedia which I set out in full here:

"Before the establishment of Israel, the meaning of the word Palestinian didn't discriminate on ethnic grounds, but rather referred to anything associated with the region, which in the Mandate for Palestine definition briefly included the area which today is Jordan. Until the creation of the state of Jordan (then called Transjordan after the Jordan River) in 1922, pursuant to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, the area broadly to the west of the Jordan River was designated for Jewish Palestine and the area east of the Jordan River for Arab Palestine"

Whilst the quoted section contains a number of errors, it makes it abundantly clear that the area west of the Jordan River (22% of Palestine) was designated for Jewish Palestine and the area east of the Jordan River (78% of Palestine) was designated for Arab Palestine.

The UN Partition Plan spoke of a Jewish State and an Arab (not Palestinian) State.

You further state:
"It was interesting to read the PLO Charter (I hadn’t done so before) but did not find anything in it which supported your (unstated but apparent) premise that the term ‘Palestinian’ can only be used in respect of people from Palestine after 1964."

Interesting you have never read PLO Charter until now. The supposed premise you draw is incorrect.

Article 6 states:
"Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian."

Jews weren't included in this definition of Palestinians nor were non-Arab Christians or other non Arabs living in Palestine.up to 1947. Pretty racist and discriminatory don't you think - especially when the Palestinian Arabs had already gained an independent State in 78% of Palestine when Transjordan gained independence in 1946.

Using the term "Palestinians" to refer to the Arab residents of Palestine only was invented by the PLO Charter.

Thanks, David. Re ‘Why not quote the whole of the second sentence?’:

You had (18April) objected to my use of “the Palestinian people”. I wrote “... the Palestinian people themselves at that time rejected the Balfour Agreement and have continued to do so ever since.”

Then I quoted Wiki: “A Palestinian can mean a person who is born in the geographical area known prior to 1948 as Palestine, or a former citizen of the Mandatory Palestine, or an institution related to either of these. Before the establishment of Israel, the meaning of the word Palestinian didn't discriminate on ethnic grounds, but rather referred to anything associated with the region...”

Having tentatively established that ‘Palestinian’ with regard to pre-Partition Palestine can be used, it did not seem necessary to include the text that followed. To me, that following-on text doesn’t canvass ‘Palestinian’, but dealt with another matter, i.e. what areas the Mandate for Palestine assigned to Jews and to Arabs.

I do not regard the state of Israel as having legitimacy, and if it’s not already clear, I similarly regard the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine. In short, ‘the winners wrote the rules’.

Your closing sentence “Using the term "Palestinians" to refer to the Arab residents of Palestine only was invented by the PLO Charter.” is incomplete. Article 6 should be read in conjunction with what follows: “Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.” I agree: non-Arab Christians and other non-Arabs (of Palestinian origin) do not seem to be included in the PLO Charter nor in its 1968 version. I don’t know why they were apparently ‘overlooked’.

Collectively, the great majority of the people of Palestine did not want a Jewish national homeland established on their lands. ‘Israel’ was imposed on Palestine by European Jews, the British (et al.), the League of Nations, the United Nations and by force of arms. This was against the long-standing wishes of ‘native’ Palestinians who under the Mandate, saw the Jewish population grow through immigration by over half a million.

#Garry

You did not quote the second part of the sentence because it established that the Palestinian Arabs were allocated 78% of Palestine by the League of Nations as their homeland and the Jews the remaining 22%.

The claim that the Palestinian Arabs need a second state in 2019 - in addition to Jordan which they gained in 1946 - is what has falsely driven the peace agenda for the last 25 years.

Even worse are those like you who claim:
"I do not regard the state of Israel as having legitimacy, and if it’s not already clear, I similarly regard the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine. In short, ‘the winners wrote the rules"

Those winners also wrote the rules for Syria,Lebanon, Iraq, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Do these rules get torn up as well?

To give you credit - at least you have been prepared to finally come out and express your true feelings - which have been hidden under a platitude of evasive comments -that Israel has no right to exist.

You -along with the PLO and so many others who spew out their Jew-hatred in response to my articles in OLO in less sophisticated terms as you - are entitled to your view that Israel has no legitimacy but it will do nothing to end the Jewish-Arab conflict - only prolong and exacerbate it.

What has happened in the last 100 years has happened. We need to try and end the conflict continuing for another 100 years - not try to undo what has happened which will be a recipe for total disaster affecting millions of Jewish and Arab lives.

Guess I can only repeat what I said in responding to your first comment:
"Get over it and get on with life..."

‘No’ to your recent (28Apr2019) comment, David.

You are asserting something (about my use of a part of some Wiki published text to throw light on the use of the word ‘Palestinian’) incorrectly. I know what my thoughts were when I wrote my (27Apr2019) comment. I explained them to you (28Apr2019), however you (‘same-day’) rejected my explanation with the following:

“You did not quote the second part of the sentence because it established that the Palestinian Arabs were allocated 78% of Palestine by the League of Nations as their homeland and the Jews the remaining 22%.”

That was incorrect. Just in case you (or anyone else happening upon these comments) are forgetful/unaware as to what we seem to have been discussing … it was the appropriateness of the term ‘Palestinian people’. Respectfully, David, you seem to have been shifting that ‘Palestinian’ discussion to one of ‘which bits of Palestine went to Palestinian Arabs and which bits went to Jews’.

In my view, you were again disrespectful when you wrote: - “Even worse are those like you who claim [...]” and again: “hidden under a platitude of evasive comments”. David, I challenged Israel’s legitimacy in my very first sentence (17Apr2019), near the top of this thread and I repeated it subsequently. It was stated openly, not hidden.

Notwithstanding this ‘housekeeping’ of mine, David, I’d like to ask you about where you wrote:

“We need to try and end the conflict continuing for another 100 years - not try to undo what has happened which will be a recipe for total disaster affecting millions of Jewish and Arab lives. ”

I’m interested in your wishes for the next ‘100 years’. How do you see the conflict being resolved?

#Garry

Thank you for clarifying your position:
" I challenged Israel’s legitimacy in my very first sentence (17Apr2019), near the top of this thread and I repeated it subsequently. It was stated openly, not hidden."

There is no purpose in discussing with you how the conflict can be resolved when in your opinion the only solution is the elimination of the State of Israel.