senojekips
Active member
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?yes, it was a simple explanation of something you didn't , and still don't, understand.
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.I regard this answer as saying : no, I didn't find the word in the link you gave me.
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"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.
Jonathan B. Quigley said: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
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.Second, show me where it says that the Palestinians are internationally recognised as the owners.
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.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---
.
Last edited: