If Israel responds, Iran threatens ‘severe, extensive and painful’ response

Nice try. FAIL!

Israel has been under attack since the 1940s. It's a rolling ongoing war Most of their actions are tempered and do not endanger thousands Blowing up an embassy or assassinating a nuclear physicist on the street in Tehran is preferable to launching 250 rockets in downtown Iran. But I hope some one will.

It is so sad you have nothing to say.

I’ve got plenty to say. It would be wasted on you.

Israel has been under attack since the 1940s.

Within four hours of Israel's declaration of independence, the United States formally recognized Israel. They were an internationally recognized nation state before the inevitable invasion by their neighbors. There was certainly a war, not to obtain independence, but to maintain independence, a war of survival for a very new state.

On December 11, 1947 it was announced that the British Mandate would end on May 15, 1948. Britain was appointed by the League of Nations, and later the United Nations, to administer the Mandate of Palestine. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948. Whether Israel had declared independence or not, the Mandate was disappearing the next day, leaving the territory independent.

The land itself ceased to be Hebrew land nearly three millenia ago. It was Muslim controlled land until the League of Nations proclaimed the Mandate for Palestine in 1922, and appointed the British to act as administrator for the Mandate.

How the League of Nations gained the authority to own the mandate or declare a purpose to create a Jewish state in the middle of what had been Muslim controled land for millenia, who knows? The same may be said for the United Nations creating the Jewish state, with Britain acting as its administrator. Much the same was done to Africa by the European colonial powers, drawing borders to suit the colonizing powers. The Mandate hokum just sprinkled legal pixie dust on the matter.

In the struggle to overthrow the Turkish Ottoman Empire, the British enlisted the aid of the Arabs to hold an Arab uprising against the Turks, and promised a large independent Arab nation. Having fought against the Turks, imagine the Arab surprise to learn their efforts were repaid with a declaration to create a Jewish state on then-Muslim land.

And so, this effort at nation building created not only a Jewish state, but an irreconcilable conflict that persists to this day. Regarding the land, both sides have reasonable arguments in a territorial dispute created by outsiders.

In 1967, Israel was the aggressor in the war that they started. They excused themselves by claiming it was a pre-emptive strike. In technical terms, that is bovine scatology. A claim that the other guy was about to attack you is evidence that other guy did not attack you. The UN and the international courts classify the land grabbed by Israel as unlawfully occupied territory. The recent terrorist attack from Gaza was performed by Hamas, not Iran. It was performed by civilian terrorists, and however heinous their acts, said acts were within the jurisdiction of a civilian court. Any possible claim of an Israel to a claim of self-defense fails. No claim of self-defense can arise relevant to unlawfully occupied territory. There was no attack on Israel and the unlawfully occupied territory of Palestine is not Israel.

Months later, Israel takes it upon themselves to blow up diplomatic a consular facility in Syria. The diplomatic facility belonged to Iran. Whiloe Israel attempts to pardon itself by saying it was not the embassy, if anything blowing up the consular property was legally worse. Both are off limits as military targets. An embassy is considered the sovereign territory of the mission country. A consulate, unlike an embassy, remains sovereign territory of the host country. Israel blew up an Iranian consulate which was part of the sovereign territory of Syria. It committed an act of war against two countries.

It's a rolling ongoing war Most of their actions are tempered....

Except for unlawfully occupying almost all the land of Palestine, and blowing up a consular facility in Syria belonging to Iran, and starting a war of aggression in 1967 in order to steal land, yeah. Apparently, Sherman's March was tempered as well. The current trouble is also about the small amount of remaining Muslim land. Israel wants it.

Actually, Iran's attack was very measured. They killed nobody and created relatively little destruction. It was focused on military bases and not cities and towns. The spectacular distraction of several hundred drones served as targets while their old missiles missiles were delivered onto military targets, not to cause great damage, but to demonstrate that they could defeat Israel's air defense system with drones and old missiles. Iran has much newer missiles to use if they want.

It is literally impossible for Israel to fight a war with Gaza. Gaza is not a recognized nation and wars are between nations. About the best that can be done is an Armed Conflict of a Non-International Character. Hamas is categorized as a terrorist group, not as the uniformed armed services of a nation. Upon capture, they do not become prisoners-of-war.

assassinating a nuclear physicist on the street in Tehran is preferable to launching 250 rockets in downtown Iran. But I hope some one will.

250 rockets flying at 100 mph are what the air defense system is tracking when the missiles arrive. I hope nobody launches missiles. The Houthi's continue to operate to block shipping through the Bab al Mandab Strait which connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden at the far end of the Red Sea from the Suez Canal. This despite a more than 20 nation coalition operating under Operation Prosperity Guardian.

Maybe we don't want a war that could close the Strait of Hormuz. They may be too busy trying to defeat the Houthis to work up another and more successful 20 nation coalition.

The Suez Canal was closed from 1967 to 1975. The Strait of Hormuz is the busiest oil-shipping channel in the world. It has never been closed. It is the only sea path from the Persian Gulf to an ocean. Iran could close it. Maybe it's not such a good idea to hope to start a big shooting war in that area.

you think pre-emtive strikes are not appropriate. I disagree

I start with the UN resolution Israel is now Israel and legitimate and regardless of what happened the last 2000 not 3000 years (even as romans controlled them) they have a serious claim to the territory. Unless you know a bunch of Caananites who do.

The real issue of legitimacy is on the Gazans What are palestinains but people who moved to the area from Syria, egypt and other places. It was the terrorist arafat who used the Palestinian cry to try to argue Israel was illegitimate.

The point at issue now is the Gazans killing Israelis in israel and taking hostages and their ongoing lobbing rockets into Israel using hospitals and schools for cover. When Hamas sells their rockets and buys food and medicine for their people, then they may start having some legitimacy.

Thanx for the history lesson. I disagree with several of your editorial comments.

My prayer today is the Israeli’s will clean out the vipers nest in Rafah and the US and Israel will bring hell and brimstone to Iran.

In believe Gaza is a territory Regardless you can have a war on a territory or terrorist organization. We have seen several of those. I agree with a lot of what you say. But as has been said israel has the most moral army in the world.

In believe Gaza is a territory Regardless you can have a war on a territory or terrorist organization.

What is important and determinative is that Gaza is not a nation state. It is impossible for a non-state actor to be a party to an international war.

Gaza cannot be more than a non-state actor, incapable of being part of an international war. The Laws of War have been done away with, replaced by the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Also appliicable is International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

Gary D. Solis, United States Military Academy, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2010, page 157.

Gary D. Solis is a retired Professor of Law of the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he headed the law of war program.

Nonstate Actors and Armed Opposition Groups Are Bound by LOAC/IHL.
What LOAC applies when nonstate actors like al Qaeda, not controlled by any state, are the opposing "armed force" in an armed conflict? "[T]he application of the laws of war in counter terrorist operations has always been particularly problematical."
Terrorist groups are most often criminal organizations, a variety of armed opposition group. (Until they defeat the government forces and become the gvernment.) They are not states and therefore may not be parties to the Geneva Convention, the Additional Protocols, or any multinational treaty. Terrorist attacks, if the terrorists have a sufficient organization and if the attacks are sufficiently violent and protracted, may be instances of non-international common Article 3 conflicts. If not sufficiently organized, and if the attacks are not lengthy in nature, they are simply criminal events.
Terrorist attacks, no matter how organized the group, violent or protracted the fighting, cannot be considered an international armed conflict for the same reason that terrorist groups cannot be considered parties to the Conventions. Terrorist attacks are conducted by non-states. More than a half century ago, Professor Oppenheim expressed the traditional law of war view: "To be war, the contention must be between states. When engaged in armed combat, terrorists and other armed opposition group members in a common Article 3 conflict enjoy no combatant's privilege, and upon capture they may be prosecuted for their illegal combatant-like acts prior to capture.

Everyone involved in a conflict is either a combatant or a civilian, the only two classifications. Combatants are members of the uniformed armed services of a nation state, wear a distinguishing insignia, carry their arms openly, etc. By comparison, a civilian is negatively defined as one who does not meet all the defining criteria of a combatant. The definition of civilian makes everyone one or the other. The make-believe classification unlawful combatant is an oxymoron. Anyone who is not a lawful combatant is a civilian. They are no type of cmbattant at all.

Terrorists who are not members of the uniformed armed services of a nation state cannot be any form of combatant, they are civilians. When the Taliban became the official government of Afghanistan, its members became combatants and, upon capture, they were prisoners of war. When the Taliban was not the official government, its members doing combat-like actions were civilians and their acts were criminal.

But as has been said israel has the most moral army in the world.

Categorizing armies as most moral is like categorizing ladies in a house of ill repute as most virginous.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n09/neve-gordon/the-day-after

Vol. 37 No. 9 · 7 May 2015
EXTRA
The London Review of Books
The Day After
Neve Gordon on the IDF’s new tactics
Several months ago, a young woman working in Kibbutz Dorot’s carrot fields noticed a piece of paper lying on the ground with a short inscription in Arabic. It looked like a treasure map. She put it in her pocket. Some time later, she gave it to her friend Avihai, who works for Breaking the Silence, an organisation of military veterans who collect testimony from Israeli soldiers to provide a record of everyday life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Avihai was in the middle of interviewing soldiers about their experiences during Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip last summer. He recognised the piece of paper as a leaflet that had been dropped by an Israeli plane above Palestinian neighbourhoods in the northern part of the Strip; the wind had blown it six miles from its intended landing point.
The leaflet helps explain why 70 per cent of the 2220 Palestinians killed during the war were civilians. The red line on the map traces a route from a bright blue area labelled Beit Lahia, a Palestinian town of 60,000 inhabitants at the north edge of the Strip, and moves south through Muaskar Jabalia to Jabalia city. The text reads:
Military Notification to the Residents of Beit Lahia
The IDF will be undertaking forceful and assertive air operations against terrorist elements and infrastructure in the locations from which they launch their missiles at the State of Israel. These locations include:
From east Atatra to Salatin Street. From west [unclear] to Jabalia Camp.
You must evacuate your homes immediately and head toward southern Jabalia town along the following road:
Falluja Road, until 12 noon, Sunday 13 July 2014.
The IDF does not intend to harm you or your families. These operations are temporary and will be of short duration. Any person, however, who violates these instructions and does not evacuate his home immediately puts his own life as well as the lives of his household in danger. Those who take heed will be spared.
‘The significance of this leaflet,’ Yehuda Shaul, the founder of Breaking the Silence, told me, ‘cannot be appreciated fully without reading our new report.’ The report is made up of 111 testimonies, provided by around seventy soldiers who participated in the fighting.
One thing is immediately clear from the interviews: the IDF’s working assumption was that once the leaflets were dropped, anyone who refused to move was a legitimate target:
Q: You said earlier that you knew the neighbourhood was supposed to be empty of civilians?
A: Yes. That’s what they told us ... they told us that the civilians had been informed via leaflets scattered in the area, and that it was supposed to be devoid of civilians, and civilians who remained there were civilians who apparently chose to be there.
Q: Who told you that?
A: The commanders, in off-the-record type conversations, or during all kinds of briefings.
The IDF has the technology to tell whether people had actually left, but the claim that ‘no civilians should be in the area’ is a recurring refrain.
The land invasion began on 17 July and was generally limited to within a mile of the border. An infantry soldier deployed either in or near Beit Lahia described a typical incident:
There was one time when I looked at some place and was sure I saw someone moving. Maybe I imagined it, some curtain blowing, I don’t know. So I said: ‘I see something moving.’ I asked [permission] to open fire toward that spot, and I opened fire and [the other soldiers] hit it with a barrage ...
Q: What were the rules of engagement?
A: There weren’t really any rules of engagement ... They told us: ‘There aren’t supposed to be any civilians there. If you spot someone, shoot.’ Whether the person posed a threat or not wasn’t a question; and that makes sense to me. If you shoot someone in Gaza it’s cool, no big deal. First of all because it’s Gaza, and second because that’s warfare. That, too, was made clear to us – they told us, ‘Don’t be afraid to shoot,’ and they made it clear that there were no uninvolved civilians.
[...]

Considering what the Hamas terrorists did, they cannot be considered as an example of morality. Morality in combat may be rather flexible. I don't know of any military renowned for its morality.

I start with the UN resolution Israel is now Israel and legitimate and regardless of what happened the last 2000 not 3000 years (even as romans controlled them) they have a serious claim to the territory. Unless you know a bunch of Caananites who do.

Israel is Israel. It does not include anything grabbed in 1967. More specifically, Israel does not include the West Bank, Jerusalem, any of the occupied territory, ot Jerusalem. Israel occupies areas that do not belong to Israel.

During WW1, the territory that is now Israel was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. After 3,000 years, there was no Israel. It is rather like saying the Mexicans have a current good claim to the entire Southwest of the United States.

Israel did not fight a war of independence and win any right to the land. It was gifted to them. In a land that was 85% Muslim, 2/3rds was given to Jewish interests and 1/3rd was given to the Muslim innterests. In 1967, the Israelis unlawfully apropriated to themselves nearly all of the third that was not gifted to them.

https://www.ochaopt.org/

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
Hostilities in Gaza and Israel are ongoing, and violence in the West Bank has surged. Millions of Palestinians struggle to live with dignity under Israeli occupation, facing coercive practices and Palestinian political divisions.

https://www.ochaopt.org/

Based on the 2023 Humanitarian Response Plan
The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is a protracted political crisis characterized by 55 years of Israeli military occupation. This crisis is exacerbated by a lack of adherence to international humanitarian and human rights law, internal Palestinian divisions, and the recurrent escalation of hostilities between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups. The results are chronic protection concerns and humanitarian needs which will continue in the absence of a sustainable political solution and opportunities for further development.
At the same time, the oPt has undergone rapid demographic growth and urbanization, trends that will continue for the foreseeable future. The absence of and barriers to livelihood opportunities are subsequently driving a cycle of aid-dependency and reliance on negative coping strategies to meet basic needs. The high reported levels of debt, and use of savings to meet basic needs further exacerbate the financial precariousness of households and may reduce their resilience or ability to recover from future shocks.
In the Gaza Strip, the Israeli occupation and years of movement restrictions, including an Israeli-imposed blockade, and recurrent escalations between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups have contributed to dire living conditions. In June 2007, after the 2006 legislative elections and following the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the Israeli authorities implemented a blockade citing security concerns, virtually isolating Palestinians in Gaza, 2.2 million people as of 2023, from the rest of the oPt and the world more broadly. This land, sea and air blockade on Gaza intensified previous restrictions, imposing strict limits on the number and specified categories of people and goods allowed through the Israeli-controlled crossings. Restrictions imposed by the Egyptian authorities on the movement and access of people and goods at Rafah, the Gaza-Egypt crossing, further exacerbate the situation. Rapid population growth, coinciding with challenges to development gains and limited resources, has resulted in further deterioration of living standards and development prospects in Gaza.
In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israel’s military occupation continues to impede basic human rights of Palestinians. Under the Oslo Accords, most of the West Bank was divided into East Jerusalem and Areas A, B and C, whereby each area is governed by different administrative and security regulations. In 2002, the Israeli authorities initiated the construction of a barrier, 712 kiloetres long, with the stated aim of preventing violent attacks inside Israel by Palestinians from the West Bank. In 2004, the International Court of Justice found the route of the Barrier to be illegal where it runs inside the West Bank. It is now a key component of a range of restrictions imposed by the Israeli authorities on the movement of Palestinians, which are implemented using physical obstacles, permit requirements and the designation of areas as “restricted” or “closed” to be used as firing or military zones. The Barrier has transformed the geography, economy, and social life of Palestinians living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The geographic and administrative fragmentation in the West Bank isolates families and communities from each other and from needed services, directly affecting the wellbeing, both physical and psychosocial, of Palestinians.
More generally, the ongoing conflict, the conduct of hostilities by Israeli forces, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other armed groups, where concerns have been raised on indiscriminate, disproportionate or otherwise unlawful use of force, alongside a series of occupation-related practices, including the possible excessive use of force, demolitions, evictions, settlement expansion and settler-related violence – all drive insecurity, reverse and prevent socioeconomic progress, breed a climate of mistrust and tension between Palestinians and Israelis, and undermine political solutions.
Moreover, the intra-Palestinian divide between Hamas (in Gaza) and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (in parts of the West Bank) that began in 2007 remains unresolved, deepening territorial fragmentation between both areas, and reducing the capacity of local institutions in Gaza to deliver basic services. Political divisions and a sense of disenfranchisement in the West Bank are further entrenched given the absence of elections since 2006, the dismissal of the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2018 and the issuance of Presidential decrees.

The real issue of legitimacy is on the Gazans What are palestinains but people who moved to the area from Syria, egypt and other places. It was the terrorist arafat who used the Palestinian cry to try to argue Israel was illegitimate.

Gaza has been muslim territory for three millenia. The only change after WW1 was that it went from the Gazans under Turkish control, to being under the control of the League of Nations, then United Nations control, and then their own control. You need a vivid imagination to question the right of the Gazan people to be in Gaza.

Jerusalem was never part of the kingdom of Israel, not even in ancient times. It was part of the kingdom of Judah.

The real issue of legitimacy is on the Gazans What are palestinains but people who moved to the area from Syria, egypt and other places. It was the terrorist arafat who used the Palestinian cry to try to argue Israel was illegitimate.

The modern Jewish state was created by the League of Nations/United Nations. Israel declared independence in 1948. The Six Day war was in 1967, and is known as the third Arab-Israel war. The first Arab-Israeli war was in 1948. The second Arab-Israeli war, called the Suez Crisis, was in 1956. Palestine was a real thing.

The plan was to have Great Britain annex Palestine resulting in the creation of a Jewish state. Diabolicly, execution of the plan included British obtainment of Arab assistance by enticing the Sharif of Mecca to launch the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in return for recognition of Arab independence in a large region after the war. During the war, Britain cut a secret deal with France.

In 1914, Herbert Samuel (1st Viscount Samuel, First High Commissioner of Mandatory Palestine) provided his memorandum called The Future of Palestine to his Cabinet colleagues. The memorandum stated: "I am assured that the solution of the problem of Palestine which would be much the most welcome to the leaders and supporters of the Zionist movement throughout the world would be the annexation of the country to the British Empire". Samuel spoke about it with Nathan Rothschild in February 1915, just before that Rothschild's death.

1915-1916 The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence

The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.

Britain enlisted the aid of the Arabs to defeat the Ottoman Empire, but cut a secret deal with France.

The Ottoman Empire, an Islamic caliphate, had ruled the Palestinian area since 1517.

1916 SYKES-PICOT (Britain-France) SECRET AGREEMENT

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp

Plotting to carve up the Ottoman Empire in 1916 while the war was ongoing.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement: 1916
It is accordingly understood between the French and British governments:
That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca.
That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigres and Euphrates in area (a) for area (b). His Majesty's government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third power without the previous consent of the French government.
That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, or (b) area, or area (a); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.
That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (a), or area (b), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.
That in area (a) the Baghdad railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (b) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad and Aleppo via the Euphrates valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two governments.
That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (b), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times. It is to be understood by both governments that this railway is to facilitate the connection of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the Polgon Banias Keis Marib Salkhad tell Otsda Mesmie before reaching area (b).
For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (a) and (b), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversions from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two powers.
There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.
It shall be agreed that the French government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third power, except the Arab state or confederation of Arab states, without the previous agreement of his majesty's government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French government regarding the red area.
The British and French government, as the protectors of the Arab state, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the red sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.
The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab states shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two powers.
It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two governments.
I have further the honor to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, his majesty's government are proposing to the Russian government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your excellency's government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your excellency as soon as exchanged. I would also venture to remind your excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of turkey in Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the allies.
His Majesty's government further consider that the Japanese government should be informed of the arrangements now concluded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

The BALFOUR DECLARATION of 1917

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
/s/ Arthur James Balfour

The Balfour Declaration eventually led to the creation of the Jewish and Palestinian territories under the League of Nations and the United Nations. If Palestine did not exist, then the Balfour Declaration was about nothing. Note that it was not sent to a diplomat but to Lord Rothschild.

1920: TREATY OF SEVRES

https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=63986
100 pp PDF
Carving up the Ottoman Empire

The plan dreamed up by the Europeans to carve up the Ottoman Empire would have reduced Turkey to a rump state, so Turkey went to war. That was finally resolved with the Treaty of Lausanne and the creation of the Turkish Republic.

1923: TREATY OF LAUSSANE

https://www.mfa.gov.tr/lausanne-peace-treaty-part-i_-political-clauses.en.mfa
Lausanne Peace Treaty
Part I.
Political Clauses
Article 1
From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals.
Official relations will be resumed on both sides and, in the respective territories, diplomatic and consular representatives will receive, without prejudice to such agreements as may be concluded in the future, treatment in accordance with the general principles of international law.
Section I.
1.Tereitorial Clauses
Article 2.
From the Black Sea to the Aegean the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows (see Map No.1).
[...]

1920-1948 Mandatory Palestine

Mandatory Palestine was a geopolitical entity established between 1920 and 1948 in the region of Palestine under the terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

https://www.loc.gov/item/2021666887/

League of Nations

Mandate for Palestine

And Memorandum by the British Government Relating to its Application to Transjordan, Approved b the Council of the League of Nations on September 16th, 1922.

Title Page plus six pages each English and French.

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstructing their national home in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22, (paragraph 8) it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Article 1
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
Article 2
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as wll secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion
Article 3
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
[...]

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-187751/

Future government of Palestine – GA debate – Verbatim record HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOURTH PLENARY MEETING
Held in the General Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow, New York, on Wednesday,
26 November 1947, at 11 a.m.
President: Mr. O. ARANHA (Brazil)
123. Palestinian question: report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question (document A/516)
[...]

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-178646/

Palestine question/Future government/Partition plan – Ad Hoc Cttee report, recommendations
REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
Rapporteur: Mr. Thor THORS (Iceland)
1. The General Assembly, at its ninetieth meeting held on 23 September 1947, established an Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, to which it referred the following items:
(a) Question of Palestine: item proposed by the United Kingdom (document A/286);
(b) Report of the Special Committee on Palestine (A/364);
(c) Termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the recognition of its independence as one State: item proposed by Saudi Arabia and by Iraq (A/317 and A/328).
[...]

Israel declared independence May 14, 1948.

For a video of how the Middle East got its borders, see:

https://youtu.be/JN4mnVLP0rU?si=pZvBAaFqom5DOPnT

Why the Middle East’s Borders Guarantee Forever Wars
Youtube
37 minutes

The ancient Kingdom if Israel was destroyed around 720BCE. It did not include Jerusalem.

Often seen is a claim that modern Israel won a war of independence in 1948. If so, who did they become independent from? Modern Israel was created by Great Britain and the League of Nations/United Nations. Unclear is how the UN owned the land, or had the authority to give it to Israel. Under the League of Nations, Britain was the appointed administrator of the Mandate for Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

According to the Hebrew Bible, a "United Monarchy" (consisting of Israel and Judah) existed as early as the 11th century BCE, under the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon; the country later split into two kingdoms: Israel, containing the cities of Shechem and Samaria in the north, and Judah (containing Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple) in the south. The historicity of the United Monarchy is debated—as there are no archaeological remains of it that are accepted as consensus—but The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed around 720 BCE, when it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. While the Kingdom of Judah remained intact during this time, it became a client state of first the Neo-Assyrian Empire and then the Neo-Babylonian Empire. However, Jewish revolts against the Babylonians led to the destruction of Judah in 586 BCE, under the rule of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II. According to the biblical account, the armies of Nebuchadnezzar II besieged Jerusalem between 589–586 BCE, which led to the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the exile of the Jews to Babylon; this event was also recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. The exilic period, saw the development of the Israelite religion (Yahwism) towards the monotheistic Judaism.
This ended with the fall of Babylon to the Achaemenid Persian Empire around 538 BCE. Subsequently, Persian king Cyrus the Great issued a proclamation known as the Edict of Cyrus, which authorized and encouraged exiled Jews to return to Judah. Cyrus' proclamation began the exiles' return to Zion, inaugurating the formative period in which a more distinctive Jewish identity developed in the Persian province of Yehud. During this time, the destroyed Solomon's Temple was replaced by the Second Temple, marking the beginning of the Second Temple period.

“Jerusalem was never part of the kingdom of Israel, not even in ancient times. It was part of the kingdom of Judah.”

Jebus was aquired by King David who was at the time King of Israel.

(Isn’t that how the story goes?)

The scripted part may not be over yet

you took a lot of time unnecessarily I am familiar with the history My point, The Israelis claim is second only to someone who is a Caananite by length of historical time

The UN resolution is determinate today.

So you don’t have to post a long history again but if you have a few comments ok.

you took a lot of time unnecessarily I am familiar with the history My point, The Israelis claim is second only to someone who is a Caananite by length of historical time

You brought up the history back to the Canaanites. As I can quite obviously recite the history with the historical documents, there was not much point in trying to give me a snow job about it. Britain found itself bankrupt in the middle of WW1 and sought the assistance of the Rothschilds. The Brits made it through the war. The Brits maneuvered to be the post-war Mandate for Palestine and, of all people, notified Lord Rothschild with the Balfour Declaration. That was a letter to Lord Rothschild. It was neither from nor to The Big Guy. What a backdoor deal.

The UN resolution is determinate today.

Considering the article by The Intercept, the result came as no surprise.

https://theintercept.com/2024/04/17/united-nations-biden-palestine-statehood/

Leaked Cables Show White Oposes Palestinian Statehood
Ken Klippenstein
Daniel Boguslaw
April 17, 2024, updated April 18, 2024

Shocker!

Once again Israel got the single vote that defies the will of the otherwise unopposed majority, that vote being the reliable veto of the United States. The U.S. tried to back door lobby for votes at the Security Council but was forced to use its veto.

There were 12 votes in favor of the resolution: Russia, China, France, Japan, South Korea, Ecuador, Algeria, Malta, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, Mozambique and Guyana.

The U.K. and Switzerland abstained from voting.

The only vote against was by Israel's Sugar Daddy. Just another typical day at the United Nations.

I do not think it was determinative of anything other than Israel has a de facto veto at the UN Security Council. This veto is just another of the long series of such vetoes spanning decades.

The only not too difficult question is whether the U.S. works for Israel, or whether the U.S. uses its veto to look out for its colony in the middle east.

Jebus was aquired by King David who was at the time King of Israel.
(Isn’t that how the story goes?)

Story perhaps. Jebus followers argue about which version of the Good Book is the real Good Book.

As for modern Israel, its status pursuant to UN resolutions called for Jerusalem to have international status. This is reflected by the fact that fewer than a half dozen nations have their embassy in Jerusalem, but rather in Tel Aviv.

France had a claim on Jerusalem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Jerusalem#French_claims_in_Jerusalem

There are four sites in Jerusalem claimed by France as "Domaine national français", which are based on claimed French acquisitions predating the formation of the State of Israel, and based on the former French Protectorate of Jerusalem (also known as capitulations), which was abolished in 1923. These sites are:
Church of the Pater Noster, also known as the Sanctuary of the Eleona
Benedictine monastery in Abu Ghosh
Tombs of the Kings
Church of Saint Anne.
French presidents have claimed that the Church of Saint Anne in Jerusalem, for example, comes under French protection, is owned by its government, and is French territory. The Israeli government has not made any public statement relating to the French claims.

And the Holy See has a claim.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jerusalem-and-the-holy-see

Interview with His Excellency Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, foreign minister of the Vatican State (1999).

TAURAN: In the beginning, the Holy See supported the proposal for internationalizing the territory, the "corpus separatum" called for by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947.
In the years that followed, although the objective of internationalization was shown to be unattainable, the Holy See continued to call for the protection of the Holy City's identity. It consistently drew attention to the need for an international commitment in this regard. To this end, the Holy See has consistently called for an international juridical instrument, which is what is meant by the phrase "an internationally guaranteed special status."
At the present time, while maintaining the request for a special status internationally guaranteed, emphasis moves to Jerusalem in a global context and to the preservation of its identity and vocation: the holy places, the areas surrounding them, guarantees for everybody of their own cultural and religious identity, freedom of religion and conscience for the inhabitants and the pilgrims, and the broader cultural dimension.

Before I submitted my post, I did a quick check;

Ii is claimed that Jebus translates to threshing floor

(The priests of baal have been known to leap)