We can all respond like that when taken out of our comfort zone. I believe we were discussing land ownership? I very much doubt that there is any piece of land, anywhere in the world, that is transferred, given, bought or sold without having very precisely defined boundaries included in the transaction. I imagine such was the way of things even 5000 years ago. It's quite OK, you know, to say 'I don't know' when asked a reasonable question, but if you really don't know the answer to this one (as I don't) don't you think it would be in your interest to come up with one?
Wow the Bible is not binding/irrelevant??? But how about the following... The wives of Mohammad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyXORliXU3Q
the bible is not a legal book. its not legally binding. God's so-called promises to the Jews, mean nothing when it comes to actual law. that's unless you think the Jews have a legal right to claim the land between the Nile and Euphrates, as this is the land given to Abraham by God in the Bible.
Sorry... other readers might differ... by stating that the Qur'an is neither binding nor relevant because of the fact that they do not believe that Mohammad is Allah's messenger turned prophet.
the koran is just as silly as the Torah. neither are legally binding or can be used as evidence in any legitimate court of law.
It really depends on what the source you want to rely on. I mean, if you want to know what are the bounderies of "Land of Israel" as it was promised, then it is from Iraq to Egypt. If you want your answer relying on the kingdom of David, that to such kingdom has archeaological finds, then "the Land of Israel" is from Syria to Egypt. If you want your answer relying on the document of the Madnate, then it is from the WB to the sea. * the Mandate didnt specify any exact bounderies, but at the time of the Mandate, "the Land of Israel", or as the Mandate defined it "Palestine", included Trans-Jordan +WB + the current land where Israel been established on + Gaza. But today if you want to regard on the docuemnt of the Mandate, then we need to exclude Trans-Jordan from the equation, because of the reason that the Brits gave Trans-Jordan to the Hashemite family.
according to the Bible, the Jews were given all the land between the Nile and Euphrates, as part of an Everlasting Covenant with God. you wanna go argue that to the UN? LOL!!!!
I dont believe on what was given to the Jews from God. I dont really care what was given. For me the Land of Israel that belongs to the Jews is from the WB to the sea. With that claim I can go argue with the UN with that, because their own charter protects the rights that were given to the Jews over the Land of Isreal, or as the document of the Mandate defined it "Palestine". Now in my comment I presented to the man that asked the question three options to choose regarding on what kind of source he wants to base the answer on.
I never said that the Charter says the word "Palestine" or "Israel. I only wrote that the UN charter protects the rights that were given to the Jews over the Land of Isreal, or as the document of the Mandate defined it "Palestine". Like rec-establishing the jews national home, like setlling etc.
the last Jewish national home that existed in Palestine, did not include the Negev dessert or the Golan. so that means Israel has no right to the Golan or the Negev, by your own logic.
I'm not talking about the last national home, but I'm talking about what the documnt of the Mandate said, and I also wrote that the international law protects the rights that were granted to the Jews in the document of the Mandate. Please stick to the subject.
you said the Mandate recreated the jewish national home. and the last one did not include the Negev desert. so give it up. - - - Updated - - - this is a lie. there is no international law that does this
Right, the document of the Madnate said that it's porpuse was to reconstitute the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel, but the document never stated that this reconstitution will be under the bounderies of the last Jewish natinoal home. Thus, your comment is not relevent to what I said. you are relying on the bounderies of the last Jewish national home, while the document of the Madate never relied on the bounderies of the last Jewish national home. You need to read the UN Charter, that is part of the international law.
the UN Charter never mentions Israel or Palestine - - - Updated - - - and this does not include the Negev, so give it up.
I never said that the Charter says the word "Palestine" or "Israel. I only wrote that the UN charter protects the rights that were given to the Jews over the Land of Isreal, or as the document of the Mandate defined it "Palestine". Like rec-establishing the jews national home, like setlling etc. I already replied to such claim. Please re-read my last comment. (number #68 )
the rights of the Mandate do not apply to Israel, as it is now a full member of the United Nations. so says the UN Charter: Article 78 The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.
So the WB is part of the territory of Israel? If not, then it is not including with the territories which have becomen Members of the UN, and thus the rights of the Mandate are still apply to the WB.
The Trusteeship rights do not apply to Israel or any Israeli citizens, according to Article 78 of the UN Charter.
