₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
If you read carefully, you will see that I am not wrong, but no matter: the division caused a war (naturally) and we have had eight decades of conflict as a consequence.

Where does any of this justify the apartheid being practiced by the Jews?

None of the previous rulers of that space practiced that on them.

There is no Apartheid going on. The biggest Apartheid against the Palestinians is actually happening in Lebanon not Israel but I am sure you know nothing about it.

DeepSight:
Independence was the not teh question. The existence of a state was the question. And that state had existed under various rulers and divisions and forms from the time of the Romans through to the time of the Crusades, through to the Ottomans, through to the British.

Again you are wrong, Palestine did not exist as a state under the Saladins, or the Ottoman, or the Romans. And if the state existed but belonged to the British, What rights do your Arabs have over the Jews? The British are free to divide the land as they deem fit and that's exactly what happened. They allowed the UN to make the decision.

DeepSight:
Inconsequential: this is whataboutism. It appears the point was lost on you when I said whataboutism does not affect legal matters. Let me break it down to your kindergarten level.

If you are accused of stealing and taken to court, the fact that you say -"whatabout Deepsight who also stole" will not make you innocent. If there is evidence that you stole, you will be found guilty even if Deepsight uses his political connections to avoid being prosecuted.

Your "whataboutist" query can only go to the fairness in the system, and never the legality of your own conviction.

This also shows up how you fail to understand the distinction between law and morals and repeatedly conflate them.

I love your answer, China taking over Tibet is inconsequential. And you even went ahead to prove that the UN is a politicized and unfair body. Then why are we even having this discussion? It seems we actually agree

DeepSight:
There was already a state. It was called Palestine.



The fight continues till this day.



You know very well it was an amalgam of the surrounding Arab countries that went to war. Yes, they lost and wars have consequences, but you act as though that was the end of the matter. Several conflicts and rapproachments have happened since in the period from then till now, several agreements and disruptive events: at all events the international community agrees that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal and even Israel's uncle, the USA agrees.

What are you talking about?
The Arabs never created the state of Palestine. It was created under the British Mandate by the British. It was not an independent state. It was the property of the British. Neither the Arabs nor the Jews were responsible for it. So why accuse the Jews for not creating a state as if your Arabs created any? How do you even reason?

DeepSight:
Not my point. Your confusion.

Please what is the UN's position on the annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China in 1951?

DeepSight:
Not my point. Your confusion.

lol keep trying to escape from your foolish point but I will not let you my boy.

DeepSight:
1. Why did 30 per cent not establish a state, why did it take the returnees from Europe to do so?
2. How do 30 per cent establish ownership over 70 per cent?

1. Why did the 70% not establish a state either? Why did the Palestinians never fight for a state in Gaza and the West Bank between 1948 and 1967? Stop asking questions your side can't answer.
2. The 30% agreed to land sharing but your 70% went to war to take everything. They lost and wars have consequences. Without the 1948 war, these would have been two peaceful neighboring nations

DeepSight:
I didnt say this.

Generally, they apply to signatories.

But jurisprudentially, laws on crimes against humanity apply to everyone, signatories or not.

My point was regarding your reference: the U.N is not in the same unique position regarding the borders of China or Turkey as it did not establish those borders.

Please stop reading X and seeing Y.

You claim you did not say that but just repeated it in your last paragraph. Your point is that according to UN law, China is free to invade Tibet and Turkey to take over northern Syria because the UN did not establish those borders. I am really enjoying your thought process.

DeepSight:
A negligible remnant is not decisive in these matters, be serious. Or I know you will be so extreme as to claim that even if there were two Jews left there, then it was the presence of a nation. Be serious for once.

They left as a nation and thats why the people who came back to establish the state of Israel came from Europe, and were not the remnant there.

A negligible remnant is not decisive according to UN laws or your own made of laws. please explain this one, my boy. Anyway by 1947, Jews made up at least 30 percent of the population of Palestine, is that negligible?

DeepSight:
By dint of remaining in Europe for 2000 years, not for any other reason.
Returning two millenia after to claim exclusivity is a problem.

And mind you, I didnt say I have a problem with returning. So long as it is done with consideration of those who have then become indigenous in the intervening time, without practicing apartheid on them and oppresing them.

You got your history wrong. Your emboldened words are claim exclusivity but it was your Arabs that are guilty of that. The Jews agreed with the UN to divide the land. And your Arabs never suffered a UN resolution for their land grabbing. So what is your point exactly my boy?

DeepSight:
They never left.

Read your history oga there have always been Jews in the land of Palestine even under Arab rule, Ottoman rule, and the British mandate so the idea that the Jews completely left is false.

DeepSight:
Israel's matter with the U.N is actually unique because neither Turkey nor China was founded by the U.N. And before you start repeating the same tired line as to whether that means Israel must be a slave to the U.N, no, it means the U.N is simply in an eminently suitable position to discuss the matter of its borders and give historical pointers thereto.

I mentioned the ICJ, is Israel not bound by that, despite being a party?

Ok, you mean the UN laws only apply to countries founded by the UN right?

DeepSight:
By dint of remaining in Europe for 2000 years, not for any other reason.
Returning two millenia after to claim exclusivity is a problem.

And mind you, I didnt say I have a problem with returning. So long as it is done with consideration of those who have then become indigenous in the intervening time, without practicing apartheid on them and oppresing them.

Oh you mean they were not supposed to return back home after 2000 years but your arabs should return after 76 years. Is that also a UN rule or have you just invented this one?
Secondly, in creating the state of Israel, the UN took consideration of the Arabs that's what they gave the Arabs the entire Jordan and the most fertile parts of Palestine so why did your Arabs go to war and what was the UN's position in that war?

DeepSight:
This is "whataboutism" and it never speaks to questions of legality.

That teh UN has been inactive in other crimes against humanity does not answer the fundamental legal questions at play with Israel's international crimes, its apartheid and its crimes against humanity.

It also does nothing to address the indigeneity of Arabs in Palestine which is the fundamental question of this thread.

Good, my boy so it is completely stupid to depend on the UN in explaining what is legal or not. This is a body that turns a blind eye whenever it wants. I would not look to the UN to determine what is and what is not because I would end up as confused as you are right now. The Un is ok with Turkey and with China but not ok with Russia and Israel does that make any sense to you my boy?

DeepSight:
I never commented on the morality of displacement of populations prior to the present international order. I commented on the legality as accepted. Let this sink in.

Why was there no UN resolution against the Arabs for their 1948 land grab? They started a war with the sole purpose of taking over all the land the UN gave to Israel and your UN turned a blind eye. Please do your research. You have much to learn

DeepSight:
I never commented on the morality of displacement of populations prior to the present internatinal order. I commented on the legality as accepted. Let this sink in.

That's exactly what you did. You have clearly stated that Israel lost their right to the lands they lost in 70 AD.
But you are allowed to change and adjust your position.
So if you agree that Israel has a right to reclaim their lost land then we are on the same side. The west bank belongs to Israel.

DeepSight:
If this is what you got from my explanation you are truly hopeless.
Suffce to say this is not what I was communicating to you.

Was there any UN resolution when In the 20th century, approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia. Primarily a consequence of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the mass movement mainly transpired from 1948 to the early 1970s, with one final exodus of Iranian Jews occurring shortly after the Islamic Revolution in 1979–1980. An estimated 650,000 (72%) of these Jews resettled in Israel.
How come the UN is not asking that these lands be given back to the Jews?
Please explain.

AbuTwins:
Hold on na!
Stay alive and kicking!

Kick dreaming.

DeepSight:
If this is what you got from my explanation you are truly hopeless.
Suffce to say this is not what I was communicating to you.

That's your entire explanation. According to you, it was ok to displace the Jews before the UN but now the Arabs are protected by the UN.
As I said, you only get more foolish as we discuss.

DeepSight:
I have told you what international law is, I have neither asserted that conflicts do not happen, nor that genocides and illegal occupations do not happen, or that international crimes and crimes against humanity are not committed. For heavens sake we had South African Apartheid until the 1990s.

You really suffer from a serious problem with common sense and basic understanding such that it is strenous trying to communicate basics to you. This is why I joke with you so much, because serious discussions with you are almost impossible and are always very painful on account that you are near retarded.

Your assumption that one has ever claimed the UN to be some school prefect or global policeman with any powers of enforcement of its own is so misfooted one does not know where to start. And that arose and stuck in your mind simply because I informed you that on the subject of its borders, the UN is instrumental to Israel on account of the role it played in its establishment.

You keep shouting that Israel is not bound by this, and not bound by that. Yes it is not bound by the ICC as it is not a party to that treaty, but it is certainly bound by the ICJ as it is a party to that. And yet it ignores the rulings of that. It has always ignored all rulings and violated all international law with impunity. And that is simply because it is assured of US backing. The day that goes, perhaps they will behave.



And if this is all you derived from my explanation, then you are truly hopeless.

My boy please answer my question. I asked what did the UN do and what was their position in the cases I mentioned above. Or does their law only affect select nations?
Let's look at the very recent case of turkey taking over northern Syria.
During Operation Peace Spring, Turkish Armed Forces and its allies captured a total area of between 3,412 square kilometres (1,317 sq mi) and 4,220 square kilometres (1,630 sq mi), and 68 settlements, including Ras al-Ayn, Tell Abyad, Suluk, Mabrouka and Manajir and cut the M4 highway.
Please why isn't there an arrest warrant for the president of turkey?
Go ahead and answer boy.

DeepSight:
I have since stopped being befuddled by your sheer irrationality. It used to really shock me but not any more.

Now listen up. After the second world war, an international order was established. It was the first time you had the concept of international law actually existing. That international order had the United Nations as its centre and citadel. That organization created the legal framwork for the establishment of Israel through the British Mandate for Palestine.

Prior to this time, and throughout history, might was right. Anyone who could conquer another did so, and "rightfully" seized his land/ colonized him/ enslaved him and expropriated his resources. That was the law of the jungle under which mankind lived. It took the horrors of the world wars for humanity to say no to this, and set up the international community and the international legal order. From that time, it became, by consensus, legally unnaceptable for one state to seize the land of another state by force. This became an international crime.

This is why the Russian attack on Ukraine is legally unnacptable. This is why Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait was also unnaceptable. Other instances can be cited, but even you should catch the drift. That which formerlly obtained as the law of the jungle had been displaced. And legally so, for law is made by people and groups of people in concurrence.

As such, the wars which involved Israel and the Arabs, despite being fought, did not truncate that new international order. Nor did those wars banish the Arab population of Palestine - indeed not even Israel claimed so, so please school yourself properly. Israel claimed land, yes, and in some areas it returned lands it had claimed - for example, to Egypt. In no case was a banishment of the Arab population the result, so what are you saying? That simply never happened. Therefore your qustion falls flat on its face. It also is a non starter in light of what I have explained to you in terms of the law of the jungle (which operated at both at the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D and the time of the crusades which involved Saladdin - who, by the way, did not kick Jews out of Jerusalem) being replaced by the international order of the latter 20th century.

This answers your question in exact terms, and I neednt have had to explain it but for your painful ignorance and irrationality. I also have no doubt that the explanation will still be lost on you on account of your irredeemable fanaticism. So I only render it here for posterity and the the causal reader of my posts - and certainly not for you, for I know that would be a waste of time and energey.

I have have answered you in my post above but to summarize your point, you believe that if I took your land from you before 1945 when the UN was founded, it's mine forever and you will be wrong to fight for it after 1945.
You keep getting more stupid.
So let's assume Nigeria stole land from Niger in 1944, in 1946, Niger will no longer have claims to that land under your law.
Do you think before your type?

AbuTwins:
I hope you'll be alive when it happens sha!

Loool. You boys have been saying this since 1948. Don't you ever learn?

DeepSight:
I have since stopped being befuddled by your sheer irrationality. It used to really shock me but not any more.

Now listen up. After the second world war, an international order was established. It was the first time you had the concept of international law actually existing. That international order had the United Nations as its centre and citadel. That organization created the legal framwork for the establishment of Israel through the British Mandate for Palestine.

Prior to this time, and throughout history, might was right. Anyone who could conquer another did so, and "rightfully" seized his land/ colonized him/ enslaved him and expropriated his resources. That was the law of the jungle under which mankind lived. It took the horrors of the world wars for humanity to say no to this, and set up the international community and the international legal order. From that time, it became, by consensus, legally unnaceptable for one state to seize the land of another state by force. This became an international crime.

This is why the Russian attack on Ukraine is legally unnacptable. This is why Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait was also unnaceptable. Other instances can be cited, but even you should catch the drift. That which formerlly obtained as the law of the jungle had been displaced. And legally so, for law is made by people and groups of people in concurrence.

As such, the wars which involved Israel and the Arabs, despite being fought, did not truncate that new international order. Nor did those wars banish the Arab population of Palestine - indeed not even Israel claimed so, so please school yourself properly. Israel claimed land, yes, and in some areas it returned lands it had claimed - for example, to Egypt. In no case was a banishment of the Arab population the result, so what are you saying? That simply never happened. Therefore your qustion falls flat on its face. It also is a non starter in light of what I have explained to you in terms of the law of the jungle (which operated at both at the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D and the time of the crusades which involved Saladdin - who, by the way, did not kick Jews out of Jerusalem) being replaced by the international order of the latter 20th century.

This answers your question in exact terms, and I neednt have had to explain it but for your painful ignorance and irrationality. I also have no doubt that the explanation will still be lost on you on account of your irredeemable fanaticism. So I only render it here for posterity and the the causal reader of my posts - and certainly not for you, for I know that would be a waste of time and energey.

So you are saying that any land taking before the UN came on board should not be given back right?
Is that your entire point because you are looking more foolish with your explanation.
If the UN hold all the power and decide who owns which land then why did your Arab bros reject Israel in 1948 and go to war in a bid to claim the land given to Israel by the UN?
Please answer this.
What did the UN do to protect thousands of Jews kicked out of the communities by the Jordanian government in the West Bank in 1948.
Did the UN sanction Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and co for kicking out over 800k Jews from their country?
Can you see that you are not making sense.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, how come no UN sanctions?
When China took over almost 10% of Bhutan's land, how come no UN sanctions.
When China took over Tibet, how come no sanctions.
Do you see you are not making sense?

How about Turkey taking over northern Syria. During Operation Peace Spring, Turkish Armed Forces and its allies captured a total area of between 3,412 square kilometres (1,317 sq mi) and 4,220 square kilometres (1,630 sq mi), and 68 settlements, including Ras al-Ayn, Tell Abyad, Suluk, Mabrouka and Manajir and cut the M4 highway.

AbuTwins:
I agree totally!

In fact all those supporting Israel will get heart complications like a Whitney Houston on Coke!

Israel's doomsday is dated!
Israel's doomsday is fated!

You boys have been saying this since 1948 but instead, Israel has increased on wealth and territory.
Keep saying it bro.

DeepSight:
You cant seem to read. The key question in the OP was this -

Loooool.
We both know you made a fool out of yourself and now you are looking for excuses.
Oga answer the question if dem born you well.
Why are the Jews not allowed back to their home after being forced out but you think the
Arabs have a right to the lands they lost.

God1000:
It won't change much but it will give the rest of the world something to pause and think about, a small nation with the courage of a super power. A nation that felt the suffering and the helplessness of a powerless people far away.

You are just super corrupt. Even if you don't support Israel's just war, how is it right to punish innocent Israeli citizens and you are the same people that complain about collective punishment. Shame on you sir.

DeepSight:
Obviously you dont know the difference between a state with uncontested borders and a state in a state of war, over internationally created borders. Furthermore you dont understand the difference between the roles of the UN as a multilateral global body and that of a singular colonial authority. I have long since known you are dense, I will not worry myself. You are unteachable, which is the worst thing a teenage discussant such as yoruself can be.

Please make sure you take the meds and report to the psych ward by six a.m.

Otherwise we may have to deploy force to evacuate you from the streets.

I am sure that when you created this thread you felt very smart not knowing it will take only one or two questions to make you feel stupid.
You Hamas gang act like you operate from the same brain.

DeepSight:
Obviously you dont know the difference between a state with uncontested borders and a state in a state of war, over internationally created borders. Furthermore you dont understand the difference between the roles of the UN as a multilateral global body and that of a singular colonial authority. I have long since known you are dense, I will not worry myself. You are unteachable, which is the worst thing a teenage discussant such as yoruself can be.

Please make sure you take the meds and report to the psych ward by six a.m.

Otherwise we may have to deploy force to evacuate you from the streets.

My boy. Nothing you have said explains your earlier stupidity or justifies your point.
Please read my question and stop being disorganized.
Let me ask it again since you are confused.
If the Jews don't have a right to their home after being forced out, why should your Arabs have a right to it.
Focus on the topic my child

DeepSight:
I said have you taken the meds? ? ? ?

Answer me!
A group of military nurses has been dispatched to contain you.

Cooperate.

Loool
You just made a fool of yourself as always.
You are the same boy who thinks Israel should always be slaves to the UN because it was founded by the UN mandate but you don't think Nigeria should answer to the UK even though we were established by the British mandate.
You are confused.

DeepSight:
Have you taken the meds?
The shrink is really disturbed by your condition.

You believe the Jews have no right to their home after being forced out but the Arabs should have the right to the land after being kicked out in a war the started. Continue
I love the way your antisemitic mind works.

DeepSight:
I have addressed this question in detail in posts you said you were not minded to read.

And my position has been simple, being away for 2000 years it is absurd for them to return and claim exclusivity over a land others have occupied for 1000 years. However in light of the wars which have transpired since 1948, both sets of people ought to reach reasonable compromises which recognize one another's human and national rights devoid of the apartheid, segregation and colonialism which currently obtains.

PS: I hope you have taken your medication this morning and afternoon. We are very concerned because the psychiatrist has been looking for you.

Confused as usual and you have zero understanding of history.
But by your logic, if the Jews have no right to their home after being forced out, why should the Arabs be granted such a right.
My boy, you have a long way to go.
Talking about both groups reaching a peaceful resolution, it was your Arabs that rejected this in 1948 and in the Oslo accords and even the Trump peace plan.
My boy, your journey is only beginning.

damosky12:
If you think other churches are upholding man-made doctrine, go and open a church where you uphold your own divine doctrine na.

Only criminals open churches I am not one