Originally Posted by VDKMS

yes, it was a simple explanation of something you didn't , and still don't, understand.

Your complete lack of logic no longer amazes me. How come it was you who apologised for your lack of understanding.??? You are an idiot, you are not even aware of what you have said, or is it that you have suddenly realised your admission makes your whole argument invalid?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

I regard this answer as saying : no, I didn't find the word in the link you gave me.

I have no idea what you are on about, the fact that a particular word is not used, in no way implies that it is not applicable or implied.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

First of all, the ruling of Terra Nullius is invalid here. And it is not because people live(d) there that they own(ed) it or rule(d) it.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but if you believe that you are wrong,... again. Terra Nullius is valid in the case of any land that is "claimed" to have no owners living in it or that the people living there are not the recognised owners as you claim.. The point you have missed entirely is that the Israelis know this and it is for this reason that they have never used it as a defence to support their illegal occupation, instead they claim a religiously based "prior right", based on their occupation (as only a minor part of the population) dating back to a time over 1300 years ago,... and we know what the world thinks of that, don't we? This will also put paid to your constant references to lack of "sovereignty" on behalf of the Palestinian people. Judge Jonathan B. Quigley, of the Moritz Law college, from his publication "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge To Justice"

Originally Posted by Jonathan B. Quigley

The sovereignty-vacuum theory as applied to Israel has been criticized as smacking of colonialism since it assumes the indigenous population had no rights. Israel itself has never used this argument since it claimed a prior-existing right.
Palestine was not open to occupation by whoever might take it in 1948. An inhabited territory, said Brownlie, "cannot be regarded as terra nullius susceptible to appropriation by individual states in case of abandonment by the existing sovereign. When mandate territory is abandoned, sovereignty is still located somewhere. The International Court of Justice made this point in the case involving Spain's departure from its colony of Western Sahara. When Spain relinquished sovereignty, Western Sahara was not terra nullius since there was a people in occupation

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Second, show me where it says that the Palestinians are internationally recognised as the owners.

I don't have to show you anything. That is the whole point of Terra Nullius rulings. The Palestinian people were and still are the occupant native population and are therefore the owners, as pointed out above.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Third, following your reasoning here's a part of a nice article about it written by Steven Plaut:

...If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. ---snip---
.

What would one expect from a Jewish writer? If the native people contest the occupation it will be judged by the ICJ as to whether they have a valid case. In the case of Australia it was bought about by only one uneducated aboriginal man, Eddie Mabo,... but then again, we are a moral and law abiding country totally without colonialist visions so we respect the rule of international law.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Third, following your reasoning here's a part of a nice article about it written by Steven Plaut:

...If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will be asked to move aside, in fact to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the Celtiberians. Similarly the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arabs imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may return control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners, which would of course be the Jews!

if one takes it to the extreme, its is believed that the human race started in Africa so does that mean (according to Steven Plaut) that all mankind moves back to Africa? If it does your going to have quite a few pissed off Zulu's on your hands.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

if one takes it to the extreme, its is believed that the human race started in Africa so does that mean (according to Steven Plaut) that all mankind moves back to Africa? If it does your going to have quite a few pissed off Zulu's on your hands.

Sadly I suspect his argument is one of those desperate last gasp ones because there is a problem with everyone "going home" and that is interbreeding, for example I am a pretty standard New Zealander and as such I can trace ancestry to a ton of places including Maori so where do mongrels go?

I suspect this is the case with most people world wide.

However as Mr VDKMS pointed out earlier intermarriage is not common amongst Jewish folk (makes the mother in law a bit of a rarity I guess) so theoretically this would mean that they can be shipped back to their country of origin.

Anyway back to lurking in the wings and wondering why every thread on this subject has turned into a p*ssing contest.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Anyway back to lurking in the wings and wondering why every thread on this subject has turned into a p*ssing contest.

People with no real interest in a subject often do see it that way. I know,... I see arguments over the vagaries of last weeks football scores, and pros and cons of various makes of cars, countries or stamp collections the same way.

So I just ignore them,... unless of course their arguing is keeping me awake.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Your complete lack of logic no longer amazes me. How come it was you who apologised for your lack of understanding.??? You are an idiot, you are not even aware of what you have said, or is it that you have suddenly realised your admission makes your whole argument invalid?

I advise you to read some books about logic.

I have no idea what you are on about, the fact that a particular word is not used, in no way implies that it is not applicable or implied.

Tell that to a lawyer or a judge.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but if you believe that you are wrong,... again. Terra Nullius is valid in the case of any land that is "claimed" to have no owners living in it or that the people living there are not the recognised owners as you claim.. The point you have missed entirely is that the Israelis know this and it is for this reason that they have never used it as a defence to support their illegal occupation, instead they claim a religiously based "prior right", based on their occupation (as only a minor part of the population) dating back to a time over 1300 years ago,... and we know what the world thinks of that, don't we? This will also put paid to your constant references to lack of "sovereignty" on behalf of the Palestinian people. Judge Jonathan B. Quigley, of the Moritz Law college, from his publication "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge To Justice"

You do not know what Terra nullius is all about.
"Terra nullius is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one" (or "no man's land"), which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty."
The region Palestine has been subject to many souvereign states. So Terra nullius is invalid, and once invalid always invalid.

I don't have to show you anything. That is the whole point of Terra Nullius rulings. The Palestinian people were and still are the occupant native population and are therefore the owners, as pointed out above.
What would one expect from a Jewish writer? If the native people contest the occupation it will be judged by the ICJ as to whether they have a valid case. In the case of Australia it was bought about by only one uneducated aboriginal man, Eddie Mabo,... but then again, we are a moral and law abiding country totally without colonialist visions so we respect the rule of international law.

The land of the Aboriginal peoples has never been subject to souvereign states.
They lived there, they ruled it and they owned it.
The Palestinians lived there, where ruled by other states and most land was owned by absentee landlords.
See the difference?

Originally Posted by MontyB

However as Mr VDKMS pointed out earlier intermarriage is not common amongst Jewish folk (makes the mother in law a bit of a rarity I guess) so theoretically this would mean that they can be shipped back to their country of origin.

Well, according to DNA research they will have to go to....Israel (Palestine). On the other hand, if we go further down history, they'll have to move to somewhere in Africa, together with the Palestinians, and we can start all over agian.

Originally Posted by senojekips

People with no real interest in a subject often do see it that way. I know,... I see arguments over the vagaries of last weeks football scores, and pros and cons of various makes of cars, countries or stamp collections the same way.

So I just ignore them,... unless of course their arguing is keeping me awake.

The problem is that there is no real solution (real as in one that will ever happen) to this argument because it contains the 2 factors that never have an outcome, religion and politics so if you can find a solution to make believe and lying you could make a fortune.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

I advise you to read some books about logic.

After your own admission of not understanding the difference, and for you to then accuse me of not understanding? You call that logic?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Tell that to a lawyer or a judge.

I don't have to it's already been ruled upon by the ICJ and it never affected their judgement.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

You do not know what Terra nullius is all about.
"Terra nullius is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one" (or "no man's land"), which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty."
The region Palestine has been subject to many souvereign states. So Terra nullius is invalid, and once invalid always invalid.

Correct,... So where does this leave your argument that the land was not owned by the Palestinian people? You have stated that Terra nullius cannot be invoked. Not because of previous sovereignty but because of the land being previously "occupied" by a native people as in my quote in my post #61.

Originally Posted by Jonathon B. Quigley

Western Sahara was not terra nullius since there was a people in occupation

Whatever way you argue, you fall on your duff, and you will continue to do so, because it all comes back to the fact that Israel has no legal claim to Palestinian land (or anyone else's other than that which they never reclaimed the right to in Europe or wherever).

Originally Posted by VDKMS

The land of the Aboriginal peoples has never been subject to souvereign states.

The Palestinians lived there, where ruled by other states and most land was owned by absentee landlords.
See the difference?

No, because, once again it was demonstrated that sovereignty has nothing to do with it. The active word in Terra Nullius is not sovereignty, but occupation as demonstrated quite clearly in the previous post.

Originally Posted by Jonathon B. Quigley

Western Sahara was not terra nullius since there was a people in occupation

Nowhere does it mention or imply that this ruling was only valid because there had been a previous sovereign state.
Furthermore, it is stated quite clearly in the case of Palestine.

Originally Posted by Jonathan B. Quigley

Palestine was not open to occupation by whoever might take it in 1948.

Well I guess I will attempt to move things back on topic (or at least I think it is the topic)
I found this rather interesting...

The Enemy Within The Israeli Army

November 16, 2011: Israel is having a hard time maintaining morale and high standards in its armed forces. A major problem is the growing number of young men and women who are avoiding service (draft dodgers, in U.S. parlance). The Israeli armed forces has about 160,000 people on active duty, about 60 percent of those are draftees (men serving for 36 months, women for 21 months) and a third are women (who can serve in 90 percent of military jobs). You get drafted at 18, unless you have a deferment. Currently about a quarter of men and nearly half the women get some kind of deferment. The military expects this deferment rate to keep increasing. In an effort to get more young men with a religious deferment to volunteer, the army is giving in to conservative Jewish sects that demand unmarried men and women remain separated while in the military. At first, this meant smaller (company and battalion size) units containing only "religious" (actually, very religious) Jews. But when these units came together for operations or ceremonies, the religious Jews demanded that female soldiers be segregated from the men. They also demanded that women soldiers not sing (Israeli soldiers sing a lot) when religious male soldiers are around. In general, female soldiers are increasingly not allowed to mingle with male soldiers if there are religious soldiers present. All this sort of thing has been bad for morale, angered the female soldiers and caused a public uproar over the issue.
For a long time, about ten percent of potential draftees were deferred because they were ultra-orthodox Jews in religious schools. Now it's over ten percent and climbing, because more young Orthodox Jews use the religious study deferment. About twelve percent of Israelis are very religious Jews, but there are a higher percentage of religious Jews among junior officers, and senior commanders fear they will soon face subordinates refusing to carry out orders for religious reasons.

Moreover, about 25 percent of potential male recruits are exempt (unless they volunteer) because they are Moslem or Christian. It's easy for women to get exemptions, and over 40 percent do. As a result, Israel is having a difficult time keeping its armed forces up to strength.

Another looming problem is a new law that only allows reservists to be called up once every three years. This law came about because so many reservists were being called up more frequently, which upset a significant number of voters. On top of that, active duty troops now require more months of specialized training, which proved quite useful two years ago in Gaza. But those months of additional training means fewer troops are available for counter-terror and other duties.

The problem with the draft dodgers is that they know that Israel has never been defeated in war, and has been the top military power in the region for decades. Many young men believe they won't be missed if they manage to fake their way into an exemption. The military is cracking down on the exemptions, sending out investigators to make sure those claiming a deferment are entitled to it. This has resulted in thousands of young men, and especially women, changing their declaration (usually about religious matters) and choosing to serve.

The military is also making a big deal out of draft dodging, in the media, hoping to shame more men into stepping up. It is also allowing more of the minorities, especially those who only serve if they volunteer, to get into any job they qualify for. In the past, Arabs were restricted from many fields, because of potential loyalty conflicts in wartime. But now the military believes they have screening that can detect who is loyal and who is not.

Finally, the military is making more of an effort to integrate young recent immigrants into the military. Because these guys often had not yet mastered the language and customs, they usually end up in menial jobs. Highly educated conscripts don't respond well to that, and it's a waste of valuable skills. So the military is going to give the new migrants more opportunities, and see how they respond.

But the most contentious problem is, ironically, the religious one. Israeli women know very well how women are mistreated in Moslem countries. The ultra-orthodox (Haredi) Jews are becoming a more serious problem. Violence by religious extremists is becoming more common. The most conservative religious Jews have increasingly used violence in Jerusalem. For example, they oppose the government allowing cars to park near Haredi neighborhoods on Saturday (the Sabbath). They also oppose billboard ads that feature women anywhere near where Haredi live, and segregate women on busses in their neighborhoods. Now they want to segregate the military as well, and that has aroused a lot of public opposition.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htm.../20111116.aspx

Originally Posted by senojekips

After your own admission of not understanding the difference, and for you to then accuse me of not understanding? You call that logic?

I don't have to it's already been ruled upon by the ICJ and it never affected their judgement.

again you go in circles. this has already been shown to be false, in previous postings between you and I either in this thread or another, so why do you keep trying to re state it?

No, because, once again it was demonstrated that sovereignty has nothing to do with it. The active word is not sovereignty, but occupation as demonstrated quite clearly in the previous post.

Are you crazy or what????

Let me give you an example where Terra nullius is valid.
Suppose Palestine was a place surrounded by big mountains. No one lived there and no other nation or army has ever been there. Then the Palestinians find an entrance an start building a society. In that case Terra nullius is valid and the land belongs to the Palestinians.
Unfortunately for the Palestinians this is not how it went. Many other nations have ruled the region Palestine, even the Jews.
Terra nullius has nothing to do with occupation. When you look at the territories where Terra nullius is or was valid, there is no mention of Palestine. A territory where Terra nullius is valid are unclaimed areas in Antarctica.
In the case Mabo v Queensland Terra nullius was rejected.
You better read the definition of Terra nullius.