Your arrogant, haughty and hubristic attitude does not count with one tiny fact. The so-called "partition resolution" you taut here and which Phil from Ireland so greatly debunked was not and never *LEGAL* in any sense. Can you grasp this simple truth, Billy? The very fact of the partition in 1947 was ipso facto illegal based on all previous agreements, resolutions, etc. pertinent to the case and simple General Assembly resolutions on top of that are never binding (so the partition res. was clearly and apparently *NOT*) unlike SC resolutions. The whole partitioning of the land (Judea and Samaria) West of the Jordan river was a fraud and a sham. Null and void. (P.S.: Others like Stan are only showing that Europe's deep-seated, inherent and quasi-congenital antisemitism are totally irrelevant, secondary (or worse) facts to them, just becasue in the comfort and safety of their Israeli homes they can well-afford not to deal with it and devote all their creative energies to their extremist, left-wing radical treasonous whims and selective faux "humanitarianism" and paly the revolutionary. Naturally they elevate what they perceive as the so-called "occupation" of Judea and Samaria, which is anything, but that.)

Twice already I have sent you a detailed response but it appears ynet swallowed it. I will try again now. 1. The UN decision of November 27, 1947 to establish a Jewish homeland in the region known as "Palestine", and the 1920 San Remo Convention, which decided to implement Balfour's declaration of a national homeland for the Jews - were very specific. I do not recall any specific international resolution which presented the Palestinians with the entirety of the West Bank. 2. As I have proven to Dave in #40 - the Geneva Treaty does not render Israel's settlements illegal. 3. I have never stated that Arab population in Israel, prior to its establishment, was a "myth". But there was never any distinct people called "Palestinians". The so-called "Palestinians" are merely an eclection of all the Arab peasants who migrated to the area from neighboring countries. They never had a common history or heritage. That's why it's no surprise that there was never any international resolution acknowledging the "Palestinians" connection and right to "Palestine". 4. The only place where resolutions favoring the Palestinians are issued, is the uber-corrupt establishment known as the UN General Assembly. With human rights champions like Syria and Myanmar leading this assembly, we all know it is a sad joke, and hardly a credible source for creating "international law". Accordingly, most of the anti-Israel resolutions passed over there (which interestingly enough, far exceed any resolutions against the world's rogue regimes like Syria, Libya and Iran) have been voted against, or abstained, by most of the Western democracies. 5. The de-legitimization of Europe to everything Israel has beyond the Green Line is historically fallacious. All the Green Line symbolizes, is the extent of the illegal Jordanian occupation up to 1967. There is no relationship whatsoever between this Jordanian occupation, and the modern-day "Palestinians". Therefore, boycotting a company like Ahava because their plant is located in Mizpe Shalem (where there was never any "Palestinian" population, not even close to the area) is just ridiculous. 6. The world has far more serious examples of illegal occupation and state-sponsored atrocities, yet nobody utters anything about it. It is therefore not a huge logical leap, to conclude that the reason for singling out Israel is rooted to a large extent, with antisemitism.

Article 4 of the Irish Constitution names the Irish state as "Ireland", not the Republic of Ireland. The UN 1947 Partition Plan proposes a "Jewish State" as well as an Arab State. Again What is your point?

yes, the nazis used a sondercomando jewish group assigned strictly to the gas chambers. they all operated on a do or die under the gun orders. all the sondercommando jewish groups working in the gas chambers and crematoria were eliminated and murdered each one after a 3 month period so as not to live to tell the atrocities they witnessed. you re such a moron.

The point is that 'Jewish State' term is excluding, it means for Jews exclusively that in today's world is unacceptable especially in country with racial mixture like Israel ,... It sounds like familiar 'raus' to others ,...

Your point makes no sense, nonsense in fact. The Jewish State is far less exclusive than any of the "Arab States". In fact, the world doesn't seem to have a problem in supporting a proposed "Palestinian" state which would be far more exclusive against Jews. The UN partition plan 1947 proposed a Jewish State which was to contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs and the Arab State was to contain 725,000 Arabs and just 10,000 Jews. Which was more exclusive? As for Ireland, the constitution does not make any mention of "Republic of Ireland" or "Irish Republic". In fact the word "Republic" is not mentioned. Your point is no point.

The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties, along with pretty much all sovereign states, all affirmed that the settlement policy violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, and you are here telling me Israel it doesn't violate after "scanning" it? Really?!?! This is just beyond ridiculous. I am still dumbfounded about how a government can build on territory not belonging to it and inhabited by people who are not its citizens and still think it is not violating any law.

Arabs are torching their own mosques, Arabs are stealing their own lands, Arabs are exiling themselves should they marry the wrong person? Arabs send their children to uproot their own fields? Open Youtube and copy paste משפחת ג'אבר מאל-בקעה to see how wonderfully we are treating our neighbors.

You are correct that the situation in SA and Israel's occupied territory are not the same, but THE EFFECT THEY HAD/ HAVE ON PEOPLE WHO CARE IS THE SAME. Also see #54 who had the same thought. Read again my # 3 and your second sentence. There is absolutely no connection! If a woman kills a man who has tormented her for years, I may not justify her actions, but I understand why she has done it. These two words have completely different meanings, so your third sentence is wrong. If you are rational, how do you explain that even Israel's friends in this world USA, Canada, Germany, Australia and others do not recognise this occupation as being legal?

"The Jewish State is far less exclusive than any of the "Arab States" ,... Agree ,... Did the Arab States ever claim or pretend to be the only democracy in the M. East or the light unto the nations ? ,...

Ah yes, resort to insuts when you lose the argument.

Envy has always been the first engine of history. When you say that Israel needs to be destroyed, you show who you really are. I guess that in your islamic slum, while you are waiting your muslim master, covering your face with burqa, you will think the only way to download your frustration is getting rid of jews. Well, there are better ways of being happy. Stop with those bullshits, dear muslim sister.

Josh, If the partition and all of the UN stuff is null and void, so would be the basis for the creation of a Jewish state on this land. Luckily neither the former, nor the latter is null and void, and your demagoguery is not a good way to discuss the subject.

Try to ignore the headline and address the content of my post, pinhead ;) ,... There's no other nation or tribe in today's world calling themselves or pretend to be a democracy and recognise their right to enter and live there conditioned by their parents DNA or ethnicity. Not one except Israel !!! ,... Have a nice day ,...

The Irish State allows Irish citizenship if you have at least one Irish ganparent. The State of Israel allows citizenship if you have at least one Jewish granparent. The only difference being the Irish populations around the world have assimilated and multiplied to such an extent that to allow Irish citizenship to every Irish decendant would be ridiculous. The UN partition plan was to set up a JEWISH STATE. So if the plan had been implemented as intended and as most of the world seems to want, there has to be a JEWISH STATE. It is the only state in the world where Jews can govern and defend themselves. That is a basic right of any nation. If Israel doesn't restrict citizenship for other ethnicities, that right will cease . The world Jewish population is so small, it will easily be swamped by others and the Jews would no longer have a state for their nation. Israel is as democratic as it can be without destroying that basic right. If you want different, then that is going down the road of anti-Semitism.

I have a suggestion for you and others like you who have very little understanding of what happens in in our little corner of the world. Spend a week with Settlers in Judea and Samaria, then a week with Israelis working in humanitarian bodies which monitor what happens in the territories. You can then return to the Settlers for another week for clarification of things you saw and heard . Continue this exchange for at least a month, after which I am sure that you will be a lot wiser.

OK. For those Jews who define themselves in national terms and who desire a state Israel is the answer. It was also the answer for many Jewish refugees, Holocaust survivors, etc. However: 1. About half the global Jewish population do not apparently define themselves that way (as well as many of the Haredim who do live in Israel). 2. Israel as a 'Jewish state' rather than a 'state for Jews' raises issues for existing minorities inside Israel. 3. So, I cannot see a problem for Israel, while retaining its overall historical and cultural Jewish legacy and character, in being also a state for all its citizens. Other democratic countries manage this reasonably well. 4. Finally, we Jews will have obtained a degree of maturity and self-confidence when we abandon the 'everybody hates us' mantra.

What leftists define as "humanitarian bodies" monitoring Judea and Samaria are traitors whose real goal is to undermine Israel and make life difficult for Jews living in our more than 3,500 year old ancestral heartland. Many of them belong in the gallows.

#69. Israeli ownership of Judea and Samaria is legally incontrovertible fact. Even the P.A. will not even debate the issue, as MK Danny Ayalon challenged them to. That is how closed the issue really is. Recently almost 1,100 international law experts told the E.U. that Israel rightfully owns Judea and Samaria. All objections to Israeli ownership of Judea and Samaria are 100% politically motivated and have nothing to do with the law.

Yes, you make some interesting points. 1. I couldn't agree that about half of the global Jewish population don't define themselves in national terms. That would require a global study which I have not seen. I cannot speak for the global Jewish population. 2 & 3. I agree that a "Jewish State" raises issues for minorities in Israel. However, it would be extremely difficult for the state to retain Jewish character if it were set up as a "state for Jews" as this could be denied at any time by a governing body with a concencus of the people. Just as democracies have to protect democracy by not allowing undemocratic parties to gain power, so Israel must protect against redefining the state where it would no longer be a "state for Jews". 4. The "everybody hates us mantra" is not without historical basis. Yes it can be taken to extremes but I have seen that hatred myself and I am not Jewish. Believe it or not, some people in modern civilised countries still think Jews are "dirty" and somehow lesser humans. That mantra will disappear when the rest of the world matures enough to speak out against it wherever it rises. The pro-Palestinian groups in my country use the mantra "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." This is not a mantra of respect or compromise. So until the Palestinian people renounce that sort of mantra, Israel is right to protect its identity.

I am sure I have asked you this before but you did not respond. Could you cite the exact source for for the report regarding these 1100 lawyers and who they are?

There is a report on this in a New York based Jewish newspaper called "The Algemeiner". I have only just seen this report but don't know anything about it. So I am in the dark on this one.

It's ON the gallows not in the gallows. Chaim, I did not tell Christy what is true or what is right. What I said is that everyone should learn ALL the facts and then DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. Helen Suzman who fought for human rights in SA was not considered a traitor by the Jews. PS I see that you informed Bertram, #79 that almost 1100 lawyers agree with you. Thats great, keep working at it. When you persuade the governments of 100 countries that you are correct, I will know that that "Greater Israel has been accepted and will survive.

As you refer to me among "others", I feel free to join. It's not true that "....all previous agreements, resolutions etc " recognized Aretz Yisroel as the Jewish National Home. The Balfour Declaration states clearly that this Jewish National Home will be established in Palestine, but without detriment to other ethnic groups living there. All resolutions after this based their decisions on that of the Balfour Dec.