[wat0n]

I never used Palestinian attacks against Israelis as an argument nor did I ever put those words together, you are the one who is talking about the position of Israelis and the right of Israel not to compensate its victims.

You did explain Palestinian animosity towards Israel, just like I explained why many Israelis would regard unilateral compensation to Palestinian property owners as unfair and this oppose it.

Unless they are the Declarations in the founding document of that State as in the case of Israel.

You mean like the Israeli Declaration of Independence? The Israeli stance is not inconsistent with it. And indeed, the UNGA took note of it just like it took note of the interpretation of UNGA resolution 194 and of the CCP's stance on the matter on when should compensation for property claims be given.

[noemon]

You did explain Palestinian animosity towards Israel,

You accused them and blamed them for their resistance against an occupying power as "anti-semitism", and we agreed together that it is not because of "anti-semitism" and that you were wrong to accuse them of such. I explained to you why it is not "anti-semitism" and that is because Muslims even 2 centuries ago gave justice to the Jews while Israel refuses to abide by its own Declarations before the International Community which founded it by removing a part of Palestine from itself.

just like I explained why many Israelis would regard unilateral compensation to Palestinian property owners as unfair and this oppose it.

Nobody asked you and nobody cares either as Iraq is irrelevant to Palestinian compensation, you brought it forward by yourself as an argument against the compensation of Israel's victims, despite the fact that Israel was founded upon the condition that it will always compensate its victims.

You mean like the Israeli Declaration of Independence? The Israeli stance is not inconsistent with it.

So you are claiming that Israel did not Declare what UN Res 1947 says, which established Israel as a state?

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

[wat0n]

You accused them and blamed them for their resistance against an occupying power as "anti-semitism", and we agreed together that it is not because of "anti-semitism".

Since then did we agree in that? I think I said there were multiple reasons for it, including irredentism which often leads to bigotry - like antisemitism. I most certainly did not say that irredentism and the bigotry that usually goes with it don't play a role here.

The thing is, and I said it too, human behavior can be explained by multiple causes so it's not like it is logically unsound to state that irredentism (and the bigotry that usually goes along with it), the broad development of the conflict and also certain Israeli policies help to explain the animosity some Palestinians feel against Israel - it isn't.

Nobody asked you and nobody cares either as Iraq is irrelevant to Palestinian compensation, you brought it forward by yourself as an argument against the compensation of Israel's victims, despite the fact that Israel was founded upon the condition that it will always compensate its victims.

Yes, I can tell you don't care about Israeli property rights. There's nothing new about that given the inconsistencies in your reasoning that have become evident throughout our discussion.

As far as facts go, Israel has in fact said compensation would be paid as part of final status negotiations from the very beginning of the refugee issue, and the CCP supported this while UNGA didn't show any objections to it when it approved Israel's membership info the UN after the Israeli government stated this position 2 days before the vote took place.

So you are claiming that Israel did not Declare what UN Res 1947 says, which established Israel as a state?

Israel's stated stance as registered in document A/AC.24/SR.45 of May 9, 1949 was deemed to be consistent with both UNGA resolutions 181 and 194 both by the CCP (which endorsed it) and the UNGA resolution that admitted it into the UN. It is also consistent with its Declaration of Independence as mandated by UNGA resolution 181.

Parroting this eternally won't change the above basic, objective fact.

[noemon]

Since then did we agree in that? I think I said there were multiple reasons for it, including irredentism which often leads to bigotry - like antisemitism. I most certainly did not say that irredentism and the bigotry that usually goes with it don't play a role here.

It is quite obvious that more than one people speak since you did not list "antisemitism" among your multiple reasons:

Multiple reasons, including (not ordered in importance):
1) Irredentism, both based on religious and nationalist arguments.

2) The fact that this is a long running conflict which has claimed many lives, pretty much every family has been directly affected in a negative way by it - be it by losing property or relatives in Israeli attacks (both by the Israeli State and settlers) and also in internal fighting.

3) The fact that some Israeli policies not only help to inflame passions but also make it rather easy for Palestinians to be in a position to attack Israelis. More specifically, I am talking about settlements as their presence and construction not only angers many Palestinians by itself, but the fact that settlers are physically close to Palestinians (compared to Israelis living in Israel proper) makes it much easier for Palestinians to attack. Issues like the blockade in Gaza don't help, of course, but all in all the most important Israeli policy here is the settlement project - and in the case of the blockade, it at least makes it harder for Palestinian militias to arm.

4) The fact that moderates are not militarily strong enough to stop extremists from your fighting Israel.

So if Palestinian Muslims are "anti-semitic" for giving justice to Jews 2 centuries ago which was your supposed argument towards that effect, what does that make Israel and the Israelis you refer to as being unable to be sold the fact?

The thing is, and I said it too, human behavior can be explained by multiple causes so it's not like it is logically unsound to state that irredentism (and the bigotry that usually goes along with it), the broad development of the conflict and also certain Israeli policies help to explain the animosity some Palestinians feel against Israel - it isn't.

Irredentism has nothing to do with bigotry or racism and Palestine was established before Israel, Palestinians are not required to be irredentist as they are not reclaiming their lost homeland, they are defending it. And the defense of your home is not irredentism.

Irredentism (from Italian irredento for "unredeemed") is any political or popular movement intended to reclaim and reoccupy a lost homeland. As such irredentism tries to justify its territorial claims on the basis of (real or imagined) historic or ethnic affiliations.

Yes, I can tell you don't care about Israeli property rights. There's nothing new about that given the inconsistencies in your reasoning that have become evident throughout our discussion.

Nobody asked you and nobody cares either as Iraq is irrelevant to Palestinian compensation, you brought it forward by yourself as an argument against the compensation of Israel's victims, despite the fact that Israel was founded upon the condition that it will always compensate its victims.

As for my opinion regarding Israeli property right I explicitly said that Israelis have every right to claim their properties wherever they are entitled to. You are incapable of recognizing the same right to Palestinians.

Parroting this eternally won't change the above basic, objective fact

Indeed parroting non-stop non-sense does not change any fact especially the one that declares that no statement, law or action is able to change any thing:

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

[wat0n]

It is quite obvious that more than one people speak since you did not list "antisemitism" among your multiple reasons:

But I did say:

Certainly, hatred goes hand in hand with irredentism. That is not new at all.

So if Palestinian Muslims are "anti-semitic" for giving justice to Jews 2 centuries ago which was your supposed argument towards that effect, what does that make Israel and the Israelis you refer to as being unable to be sold the fact?

Again with this nonsense even though I explained thoroughly that there were both Muslims who were antisemitic and Muslims who were not antisemitic. I know that as a petty nationalist you have trouble understanding this, but human beings can't form hive-minds.

Irredentism has nothing to do with bigotry or racism

Of course it does, indeed, it is often a motivator for bigotry and racism.

and Palestine was established before Israel,

Not really, in fact that's part of the problem.

Palestinians are not required to be irredentist as they are not reclaiming their lost homeland, they are defending it. And the defense of your home is not irredentism.

Those who want to conquer Israel are most certainly irredentist.

Irredentism (from Italian irredento for "unredeemed") is any political or popular movement intended to reclaim and reoccupy a lost homeland. As such irredentism tries to justify its territorial claims on the basis of (real or imagined) historic or ethnic affiliations.

The claim by Hamas that it wants to liberate its homeland by destroying the State of Israel most certainly fits this definition. So is the claim of Israeli settlers and those who support the concept of a Greater Israel, who are often bigoted against Palestinians as I am sure you know - particularly those who take part in violence against Palestinians.

Nobody asked you and nobody cares either as Iraq is irrelevant to Palestinian compensation, you brought it forward by yourself as an argument against the compensation of Israel's victims, despite the fact that Israel was founded upon the condition that it will always compensate its victims.

As for my opinion regarding Israeli property right I explicitly said that Israelis have every right to claim their properties wherever they are entitled to. You are incapable of recognizing the same right to Palestinians.

If you believe that then I'm sure you can realize why there are Israelis that may believe it is unfair to compensate Palestinians if no compensation for the property claims of Israelis is paid too.

Indeed parroting non-stop non-sense does not change any fact especially the one that declares that no statement, law or action is able to change any thing:

Israeli laws conform to the Declaration of Independence, indeed, it's enshrined in its Basic Laws. That's leaving aside the stance of the CCP in the matter of compensation and the fact that the UNGA voted to accept Israel's membership in the UN after it stated its position on the matter, namely, that it agrees to compensate them but that it should be done in the context of a final status agreement.

[noemon]

But I did say:

Not in your list of multiple reasons which is quoted in the previous post that should be obvious to you since you wrote it, and you have said many contradictory things in this thread and hence why it is quite evident that many different people speak under this wat0n account.

Again with this nonsense even though I explained thoroughly that there were both Muslims who were antisemitic and Muslims who were not antisemitic. I know that as a petty nationalist you have trouble understanding this, but human beings can't form hive-minds.

The wat0n account explained the reason of resistance to occupation as "antisemitism" and so if Palestinian Muslims are "anti-semitic" for giving justice to Jews 2 centuries ago which was your supposed argument towards that effect, what does that make Israel and the Israelis you refer to as being unable to be sold the fact?

Irredentism has nothing to do with bigotry or racism
Of course it does, indeed, it is often a motivator for bigotry and racism.
Not really, in fact that's part of the problem.

The definition of irredentism has been quoted and does not involve hatred however it is evident that you admit that Israel is based on hatred.
The fact that Palestine exists before Israel is quite clear on the UN Res. 1947 which established Israel by removing a part of Palestine from itself, look for the bold part at the end which is a fundamental law of the State of Israel:

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

[/quote][/quote]

Palestinians are not required to be irredentist as they are not reclaiming their lost homeland, they are defending it. And the defense of your home is not irredentism.

The claim by Hamas that it wants to liberate its homeland by destroying the State of Israel most certainly fits this definition.

False, resistance against an occupation army has nothing to do with irredentism.

Resistance An underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under military or totalitarian occupation.

Irredentism (from Italian irredento for "unredeemed") is any political or popular movement intended to reclaim and reoccupy a lost homeland. As such irredentism tries to justify its territorial claims on the basis of (real or imagined) historic or ethnic affiliations.

If you believe that then I'm sure you can realize why there are Israelis that may believe it is unfair to compensate Palestinians if no compensation for the property claims of Israelis is paid too.

No, no sane person believes that Palestinian compensation is relevant to Iraq, only ridiculous apologists do who find that as an argument to refuse people their basic human rights.

Israeli laws conform to the Declaration of Independence, indeed, it's enshrined in its Basic Laws.

So now you pretend that Israel conform to this:

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

The comic relief continues unabated...

[wat0n]

Not in your list of multiple reasons which is quoted in the previous post that should be obvious to you since you wrote it, and you have said many contradictory things in this thread and hence why it is quite evident to me that many different people speak under this wat0n account.

The wat0n account explained the reason of resistance to occupation as antisemitism and so if Palestinian Muslims are "anti-semitic" for giving justice to Jews 2 centuries ago which was your supposed argument towards that effect, what does that make Israel and the Israelis you refer to as being unable to be sold the fact?

No noemon, I haven't contradicted myself (unlike you), but have simply shown I can appreciate that people can have multiple reasons to act, and to hate too.

Just because you prefer to only read what you want to read because you can't actually provide a cogent argument and thus need to engage in this intellectual dishonesty, doesn't change this fact.

The definition of irredentism has been quoted and does not involve hatred however it is evident that you admit that Israel is based on hatred.

It usually causes and is thus associated with hatred, as I explained.

I am not sure of how I said Israel is based on hatred though I would not be surprised if you were making this up just like you did in your other straw men.

The fact that Palestine exists before Israel is quite clear on the UN Res. 1947 which established Israel by removing a part of Palestine from itself, look for the bold part at the end which is a fundamental law of the State of Israel:

Palestine was a British Mandate when the resolution was passed, as such the British had passed Conventions that applied to Mandatory Palestine. It wasn't an independent state just like the other Mandates weren't.

False, resistance against an occupation army has nothing to do with irredentism.

Tel Aviv and Haifa are Israeli territory yet Hamas wants to conquer them too. That is the definition of irredentism.

No, no sane person believes that Palestinian compensation is relevant to Iraq, only ridiculous apologists do who find that as an argument to refuse people their basic human rights.

Surely a person who actually doesn't care about compensating Israelis, yet lacks the intellectual honesty to say so, would say that it would not be understandable for Israeli property owners who were dispossessed of their holdings in the Arab and Islamic countries to believe it would be unfair to see Palestinians getting compensation for their lost property while they get none.

So now you pretend that Israel conform to this:

The CCP agreed with Israel in that compensation and restitution should be discussed in the final status negotiations between Israel and Palestine, much to your chagrin.

The comic relief continues unabated...

You mean comic relief like engaging in constant straw men and selective reading of the sources, your inconsistent reasoning and now your ridiculous legal analysis that not even the UNGA itself agreed with by voting to accept Israel as an UN member?

[noemon]

No noemon, I haven't contradicted myself (unlike you), but have simply shown I can appreciate that people can have multiple reasons to act, and to hate too.

It is quite obvious that you either forget your own statements or more than one people speak and are not aware of the statements made by this wat0n account.

It usually causes and is thus associated with hatred, as I explained.

Affirming something is not explaining it, and since you claim that Israeli irredentism is based on hatred, then sure whatever.
Palestinian resistance is not relevant to irredentism because Palestine pre-exists and its liberation is contingent to resistance not irredentism.

A resistance movement is an organized effort by some portion of the civil population of a country to resist the legally established government or an occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. It may seek to achieve its objectives through either the use of nonviolent resistance (sometimes called civil resistance), or the use of force, whether armed or unarmed. In many cases, as for example in Norway in the Second World War, a resistance movement may employ both violent and non-violent methods, usually operating under different organizations and acting in different phases or geographical areas within a country.[1]

Palestine was a British Mandate when the resolution was passed, as such the British had passed Conventions that applied to Mandatory Palestine. It wasn't an independent state just like the other Mandates weren't.

Sovereign independence is irrelevant to existence.

I am not sure of how I said Israel is based on hatred though I would not be surprised if you were making this up just like you did in your other straw men.

Certainly, hatred goes hand in hand with irredentism. That is not new at all. Multiple reasons, including (not ordered in importance):
1) Irredentism, both based on religious and nationalist arguments. 1-3 reasons also apply to Israel

Surely a person who actually doesn't care about compensating Israelis, yet lacks the intellectual honesty to say so, would say that it would not be understandable for Israeli property owners who were dispossessed of their holdings in the Arab and Islamic countries to believe it would be unfair to see Palestinians getting compensation for their lost property while they get none.

No sane person believes that Palestinian compensation is relevant to Iraq, as no sane person believed that German compensation to Jews was relevant to Soviet compensation to Germans, neither did the Jews who received said compensation. But the double-standards are quite disgusting.

The CCP agreed with Israel in that compensation and restitution should be discussed in the final status negotiations between Israel and Palestine, much to your chagrin.

Much to your chagrin Israel agreed and declared fundamental laws:

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

[wat0n]

It is quite obvious that you either forget your own statements or more than one people speak and are not aware of the statements made by this wat0n account.

So far what I can see is what I've mentioned so far: Selective reading, straw men and also inability to understand people can't form hive-minds.

Affirming something is not explaining it, and since you claim that Israeli irredentism is based on hatred, then sure whatever.

I'm not sure how I said Israeli irredentism is based on hatred. What I did say however is that some Israelis do hold hatred for Palestinians because of the are irredentist - just like some Palestinians hate Jews because they are irredentist as well. This also means Israel isn't based on hatred just like Palestine isn't - there are plenty of Israelis who don't hate Palestinians and plenty of Palestinians who don't hate Jews (indeed, I think they are the majority in both populations).

I'm simply being consistent here. You could learn from this.

Palestinian resistance is not relevant to irredentism because Palestine pre-exists and its liberation is contingent to resistance not irredentism.

Trying to conquer Tel Aviv and Haifa is not resistance, it's simply irredentism and inability to accept Israel's existence.

Labeling this irredentism as resistance is also inability to accept Israel's existence on your part too.

Sovereign independence is irrelevant to existence.

Of course it is if we are discussing statehood.

No sane person believes that Palestinian compensation is relevant to Iraq, as no sane person believed that German compensation to Jews was relevant to Soviet compensation to Germans, neither did the Jews who received said compensation. But the double-standards are quite disgusting.

Since when did Germany demand compensation from the USSR?

Much to your chagrin Israel agreed and declared fundamental laws:

And they conform to the Declaration they made pursuant to the resolution, which is another reason of why it was accepted as a member by the UNGA.

[noemon]

I'm not sure how I said Israeli irredentism is based on hatred.

Here you said it explicitly:

Certainly, hatred goes hand in hand with irredentism. That is not new at all. Multiple reasons, including (not ordered in importance):
1) Irredentism, both based on religious and nationalist arguments. 1-3 reasons also apply to Israel

Trying to conquer Tel Aviv and Haifa is not resistance, it's simply irredentism and inability to accept Israel's existence.
Labeling this irredentism as resistance is also inability to accept Israel's existence on your part too.

Your conclusions are irrelevant to the facts, especially when you openly dispute Israel's founding documents.
Palestinian resistance is not relevant to irredentism because Palestine pre-exists and its liberation is contingent to resistance not irredentism. Irredentism is why one tries to take foreign territory not territory stolen & occupied by someone which one has never officially recognized as foreign.

Of course it is if we are discussing statehood.

Palestine is a State whose State laws Israel had to accept in its founding documents.

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

Since when did Germany demand compensation from the USSR?

By your logic why should have Germans paid any compensation to Jews without them receiving compensation from the Soviets, that is exactly what you claim as the reason being for Israelis not giving compensation to Palestinians since Iraq is not giving them compensation.

[wat0n]

Here you said it explicitly:

Or maybe it is the other way around, hatred is based on irredentism.

Your conclusions are irrelevant to the facts, especially when you openly dispute Israel's founding documents.

I am not sure of how I dispute the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Palestinian resistance is not relevant to irredentism because Palestine pre-exists and its liberation is contingent to resistance not irredentism. Irredentism is why one tries to take foreign territory not territory stolen & occupied by someone which one has never officially recognized as foreign.

Exactly, since they don't recognize Haifa and Tel Aviv as foreign they do not acknowledge Israeli existence, which is irredentism by definition.

The interesting part is that you seem to be supporting this irredentism despite your claims of supporting international law

Palestine is a State whose State laws Israel had to accept in its founding documents.

There is no mention of Palestine as a State at the time in hour quote.

By your logic why should have Germans paid any compensation to Jews without them receiving compensation from the Soviets, that is exactly what you claim as the reason being for Israelis not giving compensation to Palestinians since Iraq is not giving them compensation.

So you cannot prove Germany demanded compensation from the USSR, this your argument ceases to make sense.

[noemon]

Or maybe it is the other way around, hatred is based on irredentism.

It does not matter how you non-sensically spin it you clearly said Israeli irredentism is based on hatred:

Certainly, hatred goes hand in hand with irredentism. That is not new at all. Multiple reasons, including (not ordered in importance):
1) Irredentism, both based on religious and nationalist arguments. 1-3 reasons also apply to Israel

Exactly, since they don't recognize Haifa and Tel Aviv as foreign they do not acknowledge Israeli existence, which is irredentism by definition. The interesting part is that you seem to be supporting this irredentism despite your claims of supporting international law

False, since by that logic all Nazi occupied countries resisting Nazi occupation were "irredentist", which is clearly non-sense. Greeks were not irredentist trying to liberate Salonica, neither were the French trying to liberate Paris. Irredentism is when you claim territory which the entire nation has officially recognized as foreign. Facts are irrelevant to opinions, both mine and yours, for example Greek irredentism in the Ottoman Empire was true precisely because Greeks had officially recognized the authority of the Ottomans prior to their insurrection, but not true under the Nazis because the Greek national body had not recognized the Germans and as such was not reclaiming something back but attempting to liberate it and what the Germans or others thought of that is completely inconsequential to the facts.

There is no mention of Palestine as a State at the time in hour quote.

Of coarse there is, bold part:

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

So you cannot prove Germany demanded compensation from the USSR, this your argument ceases to make sense.

But you are not talking about states but about what people should consider fair and just, remember? And why should people consider fair and just German compensation to Jews when the Germans got no compensation from the Soviets or anybody else? You said that Israelis are right to believe that Palestinians should not get compensation by the Jews since the Jews are not getting any compensation from Iraq and that any "proper" person should understand that as fair and understandable but Jews did not consider that to be true when they got the German compensations which was at the same time as they stole the property of the Palestinians and refused them compensation even if it is in the founding documents.

[wat0n]

It does not matter how you non-sensically spin it you clearly said Israeli irredentism is based on hatred:

I'd say you are working quite hard to set this straw man up, particularly since it was an explanation of why there is animosity between some Israelis and Palestinians to the point of fighting each other, which certainly doesn't mean that every single Israeli and every single Palestinian has animosity towards the other especially since I said I don't think humans can form hive-minds (and also means that I don't think Palestine is based on hatred). Have fun tearing it down.

False, since by that logic all Nazi occupied countries resisting Nazi occupation were "irredentist", which is clearly non-sense. Greeks were not irredentist trying to liberate Salonica, neither were the French trying to liberate Paris. Irredentism is when you claim territory which the entire nation has officially recognized as foreign. Facts are irrelevant to opinions, both mine and yours, for example Greek irredentism in the Ottoman Empire was true precisely because Greeks had officially recognized the authority of the Ottomans prior to their insurrection, but not true under the Nazis because the Greek national body had not recognized the Germans and as such was not reclaiming something back but attempting to liberate it and what the Germans or others thought of that is completely inconsequential to the facts.

Since when is that the definition of irredentism? It clearly does not match what you posted yourself, you are literally making it up

Furthermore:

1) The PLO, as the representative of the Palestinian people, recognized Israel existence and does not dispute that Tel Aviv and Haifa are Israeli territory.

2) Both Haifa and Tel Aviv are recognized Israeli territory under international law. Your claim that Hamas is not irredentist but trying to liberate those territories from foreign occupation makes a mockery of the same international law you claim to uphold.

Of coarse there is, bold part:

Doesn't refer it as an independent state, it was simply a Mandate.

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

But you are not talking about states but about what people should consider fair and just, remember? And why should people consider fair and just German compensation to Jews when the Germans got no compensation from the Soviets or anybody else? You said that Israelis are right to believe that Palestinians should not get compensation by the Jews since the Jews are not getting any compensation from Iraq and that any "proper" person should understand that as fair and understandable but Jews did not consider that to be true when they got the German compensations which was at the same time as they stole the property of the Palestinians and refused them compensation even if it is in the founding documents.

Oh, so you want to talk about people.

Okay, there were Germans who demanded and still demand compensation from Russia and several Central European countries (such as Poland, the Czech Republic and others) over the post WWII expulsion of ethnic Germans from those places, and they even filed lawsuits in the European Court of Human Rights to that effect (which were not accepted by the Court). I don't know what their stance on compensation or restitution for the properties European Jews lost after WWII is, but they most certainly regard the current status quo in which they aren't being compensated or restituted as unfair or else they would not be demanding compensation or restitution for the properties they lost up to this day. Interestingly, these groups also tend to be associated with the German right, especially the political party they formed which had several former Nazis in its leadership, and indeed the Federation of Expellees was also criticized because the Charter Charter of the German Expellees made no mention to the actions of the Nazis or of compensating their victims.

[noemon]

I'd say you are working quite hard to set this straw man up, particularly since it was an explanation of why there is animosity between some Israelis and Palestinians.

You fell deep inside your own bullshit(despite my repeated warnings that your straws are digging your own hole) and now you don't know how to escape your own words, you wanted to insist that Palestinians hate Israel because of "antisemitism" and you ended up saying that Israel/Israelis maintain irredentism because they hate the Palestinians.... I do not see how can you deny your own words which clearly state that Israel has been built on hatred:

Certainly, hatred goes hand in hand with irredentism. That is not new at all. Multiple reasons, including (not ordered in importance):
1) Irredentism, both based on religious and nationalist arguments. 1-3 reasons also apply to Israel

Since when is that the definition of irredentism? It clearly does not match what you posted yourself, you are literally making it up
Furthermore:
1) The PLO, as the representative of the Palestinian people, recognized Israel existence and does not dispute that Tel Aviv and Haifa are Israeli territory.
2) Both Haifa and Tel Aviv are recognized Israeli territory under international law. Your claim that Hamas is not irredentist but trying to liberate those territories from foreign occupation makes a mockery of the same international law you claim to uphold.

Quislings officially recognized the Nazi governments as well and Axis international law recognized all occupied countries as Axis territory too. It does not mean that the occupied national bodies recognized their occupiers and thieves of national territory and that is why they resisted and the same applies to the Palestinian nation which has not recognized the theft of its own land and since you blame both Hamas and the PLO for the lack of compensation of the Palestinian nation, asserting collective punishment, then you cannot assert that this nation has recognized the theft of its property and as such register it in the national body as "foreign", territory that is not foreign because it has not been recognized as foreign by the entire national body is simply not accepted as foreign for it to be "reclaimed", it is deemed as occupied and it is meant to be liberated, just like resistance movements in occupied Europe sought to liberate their homelands not redeem them within an irredentist concept. That's just non-sense.

Irredentism (from Italian irredento for "unredeemed") is any political or popular movement intended to reclaim and reoccupy a lost homeland. As such irredentism tries to justify its territorial claims on the basis of (real or imagined) historic or ethnic affiliations.

False, since by that logic all Nazi occupied countries resisting Nazi occupation were "irredentist", which is clearly non-sense. Greeks were not irredentist trying to liberate Salonica, neither were the French trying to liberate Paris. Irredentism is when you claim territory which the entire nation has officially recognized as foreign. Facts are irrelevant to opinions, both mine and yours, for example Greek irredentism in the Ottoman Empire was true precisely because Greeks had officially recognized the authority of the Ottomans prior to their insurrection, but not true under the Nazis because the Greek national body had not recognized the Germans and as such was not reclaiming something back but attempting to liberate it and what the Germans or others thought of that is completely inconsequential to the facts.

Doesn't refer it as an independent state, it was simply a Mandate.

Did you miss the words in the bit you quoted?

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

Oh, so you want to talk about people.

You have been pretending to talk about people in order to justify the lack of compensation against Palestinians victims, so you will try your own medicine.

But you are not talking about states but about what people should consider fair and just, remember? And why should people consider fair and just German compensation to Jews when the Germans got no compensation from the Soviets or anybody else? You said that Israelis are right to believe that Palestinians should not get compensation by the Jews since the Jews are not getting any compensation from Iraq and that any "proper" person should understand that as fair and understandable but Jews did not consider that to be true when they got the German compensations which was at the same time as they stole the property of the Palestinians and refused them compensation even if it is in the founding documents.

And why should anyone find the claims of the Jews as "just" when they did not find the claims of the Germans just and they took their money anyway despite the fact that the Germans did not receive any compensation from foreign countries?

[QatzelOk]

You fell deep inside your own bullshit and now you don't know how to escape your own words,

This is why the natives were not jealous of Europeans and their text-based religions. On visiting Europe, local natives remarked that the text-worshiping Euros were unhealthy and cruel to their own people - that they had "fallen for their own bullshit and didn't know how to escape their own words."

It's the cause of every colonial atrocity, and it's what wat0n perfectly captures with each tortuous post.

[wat0n]

You fell deep inside your own bullshit(despite my repeated warnings that your straws are digging your own hole) and now you don't know how to escape your own words, you wanted to insist that Palestinians hate Israel because of "antisemitism" and you ended up saying that Israel/Israelis maintain irredentism because they hate the Palestinians.... I do not see how can you deny your own words which clearly state that Israel has been built on hatred:

No noemon, that's simply your dishonest interpretation based on your deliberate misrepresentation of my arguments.

Quislings officially recognized the Nazi governments as well and Axis international law recognized all occupied countries as Axis territory too. It does not mean that the occupied national bodies recognized their occupiers and thieves of national territory and that is why they resisted and the same applies to the Palestinian nation which has not recognized the theft of its own land and since you blame both Hamas and the PLO for the lack of compensation of the Palestinian nation, asserting collective punishment, then you cannot assert that this nation has recognized the theft of its property and as such register it in the national body as "foreign", territory that is not foreign because it has not been recognized as foreign by the entire national body is simply not accepted as foreign for it to be "reclaimed", it is deemed as occupied and it is meant to be liberated, just like resistance movements in occupied Europe sought to liberate their homelands not redeem them within an irredentist concept. That's just non-sense.

So now you say that the PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people, are now quislings for seeking a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as opposed to Hamas' violent way.

Please, keep digging your grave further - at least it is now clear that you support Hamas' violence against Israeli Jews, which as you know includes the deliberate targeting of civilians.

The above is also why you feel the need of deliberately distorting my arguments, such as now claiming I support collective punishment of the Palestinians. What I think, in fact, is that you are just projecting your own desires on me.

Did you miss the words in the bit you quoted?

You obviously did, after all the whole section speaks about terminating the Mandate and granting the people there independence.

You have been pretending to talk about people in order to justify the lack of compensation against Palestinians victims, so you will try your own medicine.

But you are not talking about states but about what people should consider fair and just, remember? And why should people consider fair and just German compensation to Jews when the Germans got no compensation from the Soviets or anybody else? You said that Israelis are right to believe that Palestinians should not get compensation by the Jews since the Jews are not getting any compensation from Iraq and that any "proper" person should understand that as fair and understandable but Jews did not consider that to be true when they got the German compensations which was at the same time as they stole the property of the Palestinians and refused them compensation even if it is in the founding documents.

And why should anyone find the claims of the Jews as "just" when they did not find the claims of the Germans just and they took their money anyway despite the fact that the Germans did not receive any compensation from foreign countries?

Who says that I consider the fact that Germans expellees haven't been compensated for the properties they lost to be fair? I recall we discussed this in another thread (for here on) and I showed that certain EU member states do not compensate or restitute Germans who lost their property during and after WWII as part of the post-war arrangements in Europe to foster stability and that EU courts (the ECHR to be specific) refused to grant them compensation as well, despite your nonsense about the EU being the hallmark of civilization you were claiming in that thread.

As I showed, the German party that was founded with the explicit goal of seeking compensation or restitution of the property expellees lost was a right-wing nationalist party that had several former Nazis in its leadership, and the movement's Charter did not recognize any wrongdoing by the Nazis that may have explained what happened during and after WWII. I have no reason to believe that former Nazis supported compensating European Jews over actions they did not acknowledge and who believed ethnic German expellees were subjected to an unjust treatment, they most likely regarded the fact that non-Germans were being compensated but Germans weren't as fundamentally unfair.

Even then, I think ethnic Germans, German Jews and others who lost property as a result of WWII and its aftermath have a right to be compensated just like both Israelis and Palestinians who lost property as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war have a right to be compensated for it regardless of the place it occurred, something Israel accepted as early as in 1949 as stated by the Israeli representative to the UN 2 days before Israel got accepted as a member to the UN. At last but not least, it should be noted that Germany compensated European Jews for their dispossession only after WWII ended and not while it was being fought, very much like Israel accepted to compensate Palestinians as soon as a peace treaty was signed which ended the conflict and not while it is still running.

I am most certainly being consistent here, unlike you who argued on the aforementioned thread that German expellees should not be granted compensation by EU courts for the properties they lost after being expelled in the context of the post-war agreements even though they are located in the territory of EU member states because they were expelled by the USSR and Communist authorities back when they weren't part of the EU, while at the same saying that it is Israel's fault that Israelis who lost property they owned in the West Bank as a result of expulsion by Jordan during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war aren't being compensated since the West Bank is currently under its control.

This is just one more example of the inconsostencies in your stance, as you claim to believe in strictly upholding international law while engaging in constant contortions to disregard it when it suits you, just like you engage in constant contortions to deny that Hamas is irredentist (like adding elements to the word's definition that were not in the one you posted yourself, and which don't apply even then as the PLO, which is the representative of the Palestinian people, recognizes Israel) and just like you also engage in constant contortions to misrepresent both my arguments and third party sources (even the ones you post) yet claim to be behaving in a honest and honorable way and start beating your chest in outrage whenever someone says something you do not like as if you were in a position to do so.

It's been fun to put these inconsistencies in your positions in the open, hopefully you will try to be more consistent in your reasoning in the future. Have a nice day

[noemon]

No noemon, that's simply your dishonest interpretation based on your deliberate misrepresentation of my arguments.

This is your statement word for word:

Certainly, hatred goes hand in hand with irredentism. That is not new at all. Multiple reasons, including (not ordered in importance):
1) Irredentism, both based on religious and nationalist arguments. 1-3 reasons also apply to Israel

You can dishonestly deny it all you like, but it's here.

Quislings officially recognized the Nazi governments as well and Axis international law recognized all occupied countries as Axis territory too. It does not mean that the occupied national bodies recognized their occupiers and thieves of national territory and that is why they resisted and the same applies to the Palestinian nation which has not recognized the theft of its own land and since you blame both Hamas and the PLO for the lack of compensation of the Palestinian nation, asserting collective punishment, then you cannot assert that this nation has recognized the theft of its property and as such register it in the national body as "foreign", territory that is not foreign because it has not been recognized as foreign by the entire national body is simply not accepted as foreign for it to be "reclaimed", it is deemed as occupied and it is meant to be liberated, just like resistance movements in occupied Europe sought to liberate their homelands not redeem them within an irredentist concept. That's just non-sense.

So now you say that the PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people, are now quislings for seeking a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as opposed to Hamas' violent way.

Nope, I am making it obvious that when one single man makes a decision he does not represent the entire national body, the same way that individual men in quisling governments did not represent the entire national bodies of the occupied European peoples. I do not believe that the PLO are quislings but my personal opinion is irrelevant to the fact that the Palestinian national body has not ever recognized Palestine as foreign territory. This fact does not imply any support of violence dear, but is a statement of fact. On the contrary not recognizing the Palestinians human rights is a support to violence.

Please, keep digging your grave further- at least it is now clear that you support Hamas' violence against Israeli Jews, which as you know includes the deliberate targeting of civilians.

It is not my fault that you are incapable to address the facts and that you prefer to attack me personally instead, besides that is all your logic and the hole that you have dug for yourself by bringing all these arguments here:

Exactly, since they don't recognize Haifa and Tel Aviv as foreign they do not acknowledge Israeli existence, which is irredentism by definition.

False, since by that logic all Nazi occupied countries resisting Nazi occupation were "irredentist", which is clearly non-sense. Greeks were not irredentist trying to liberate Salonica, neither were the French trying to liberate Paris. Irredentism is when you claim territory which the entire nation has officially recognized as foreign. Facts are irrelevant to opinions, both mine and yours, for example Greek irredentism in the Ottoman Empire was true precisely because Greeks had officially recognized the authority of the Ottomans prior to their insurrection, but not true under the Nazis because the Greek national body had not recognized the Germans and as such was not reclaiming something back but attempting to liberate it and what the Germans or others thought of that is completely inconsequential to the facts.

You obviously did, after all the whole section speaks about terminating the Mandate and granting the people there independence.

The text that Israel Declared in its own Founding Documents is quite clear and explicit by itself:

Establishment of Israel UN Res. 1947 wrote:

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

The State [of Israel] shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

Who says that I consider the fact that Germans expellees haven't been compensated for the properties they lost to be fair?

But you are not talking about yourself wat0n you are talking about Israelis who should allegedly be understood as victims when they deny Palestinians their compensation because according to you they did not get any compensation from Iraq, but these same Israelis did not care about Germans getting compensation from anybody before they receive their own. Looks like these Israelis Jews are not at all consistent, especially when they use this argument to deny people their rightful compensation as declared by the founding documents of their own country.

The rest of your non-sense about your understanding of Germans is irrelevant.

It's been fun

It's good to hear, hope you have a nice day too.