Ellies🚎 🚲🌲⚖️💲🇦🇿

@QuinnsHere @bigshitposting @allisonlehenba1 @Leveragereality @samjcohn Instead of starting w/large 3bd 10mi from work, & upgrading to 5bd macmansion 20mi from work, & downsizing after kids move out to 2bd condo in city & walk to work, why not just start & end w/condo??? Save $250k+ on SINGLE car, plus $250k+ on housing. mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the…

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 x.com/ellies671/stat…

One of the main foundations of the Palestinian narrative states that: "according to international law, Israel is occupying Palestinian land". What most people don't know is that the international law states, in fact, the exact opposite. I'll explain. In the picture below, you can see article 80 in the UN charter, signed by the UN in 1945 during the San Francisco convention. As stated, its purpose was to ensure the rights given by trusteeship agreements approved by the UN, one of them being the British Mandate which officially began in 1920 and was designated to the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish people on the area shown in the map below, as previously declared in the Balfour Declaration in 1918. Now you may say: "but what about the UN general assembly Resolution 181 (the partition plan)?". The answer here is pretty simple: first of all, the general committee has no official power to enforce their decisions, which are mostly symbolic. Second, the plan was never set in motion, as the Arab leadership refused to accept it and the war between the Jewish population and the Arab one, broke down. Regarding the UN security council, Article 24(2) states: "the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". Which means it also cannot overrule article 80 in the UN charter. There is also an argument I heard, about the British Mandate being a class A mandate. Class A mandates, were territories formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to "... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". There is one major problem with this argument: the Muslim Arabs NEVER had any national ambitions back then, nor wanted an independent state until after 1948. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, probably the most prominent Muslim leader during the British Mandate and the Mufti of Jerusalem at that time, who dedicated his life to combat Zionism and purge the Jewish population in the area, even reaching Adolf Hitler at some point to help him fulfill those plans, never wanted an establishment of an independent Muslim state. While launching massacres against the Jewish population (the great Arab revolt, 1929 Arab riots and more) and trying to convince Arabs not to sell lands to Jews, he justified it only using religious Islamic motives and blood libels against the Jews. Their only mission was to erase Zionism, so there was never an appeal by him, nor the Arab League and not any other Muslim leadership of that time to the international community, for the establishment of a Muslim state called "Palestine". So when I define the Palestinians as: "a political movement pretending to be a nation, only to combat Zionism", I talk about this exactly. This text sums up the main things you should know about the non-existent Israeli occupation, which many people unfortunately don't. So it was very important to me to write about it, especially in these difficult times, and I'd appreciate your support in spreading this message, a lot.

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 ... Not "whichever" . Israel didn't choose, ask for, fight for, or defend "whichever". A reasonable amount, say 1% of Europe.

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 Probably yes. This is completely normal and how it has always been.

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 It was 100% secular, in that poverty and persecution are irreligious. Likewise, the Ottoman permission was political.

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 Huh? Nearly all states are based on ethnicity and/or language and/or religion. There are 22 Arab states, on what basis, exactly? Sure, not a bad idea for a a small gay state on each continent. A small second Jewish state was and may still be a good idea in Europe.

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 What is it with the religious mumbo jumbo?

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 You said that the creation of Israel was an atrocity. I said that the creation of Israel earlier would have saved 6 million Jews from an actual atrocity. Your view is, well, kookoo 4 koko puffs.

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 Immigration to the Holy Land was meant to prevent immigration of poor and religious to the west, inundating both wealthier and more secular Jews as well as exacerbating anti-semitism. The countering anti-semitism bit tragically failed.

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 Zionism started as a way to save poor Eastern European Jews. On the ground it was primarily secular socialist, and not anything to do with God. Please don't comment if you don't know what you're talking about.

@andrewj8052 @shlomo_fishman @stevenkammerer5 What is the relevance of your comment?

@shlomo_fishman @babu_36680 The Hashemites wanted it all! Hejaz, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq. Patriarch was so salty about Jews that he broke with the Brits and ended up losing Hejaz to the Saudis. So much greed and hate, all for nothing.

They formed in 1936, and revolted against the British trying to force their demands by attacking British installations and massacring Jews. They didn't actually demand anything from them. They didn't demand a state, but a regional independence as a part of a single Arab nation as they viewed themselves then. It also has nothing to do with the international community or the international law.

@aeiou_Zz @shlomo_fishman British laws against Jewish immigration that led to 6 million deaths and then outright abandonment in 1948 were in the service of Zionists? WTF?

@shlomo_fishman In essence, land that is forcibly taken from its owner is a thief. The international mandates and laws that were made were the product of the Zionists, so it is natural that they agreed to them.

@TruthCanSting @shlomo_fishman There were generally few restrictions on immigration prior to WWI, so the timefare must be limited from WWI to 1948.

@shlomo_fishman Easy question, what was it called pre 1917?

@RamirVII @shlomo_fishman @Veganspider Who took away that turn? x.com/ellies671/stat…

@shlomo_fishman @Veganspider The principal conception of state dosn't require physical borders. By law all colonies were not sovereign until it's independence. Palestine never got it's turn cause it was imposed another state inside their own legal borders post British. Easy as this.

@pkng826 @EylonALevy This "Jewish vs Democratic" argument isn't doing what you think it is. Most care not for democracy in the face of existential threat. There are few if any Dem Arab polities at all. Q for Isr is whether it wantd a bad or horrific Pal admin, & appropriate answer is *neither*.

82% of Palestinians in the West Bank think that Hamas was right to perpetrate the October 7 Massacre, despite all the damage that's been done in Gaza since. Does that change how you think about future solutions? If not, why not? Genuinely asking.

@MusicHeretic @GMJacobAagaard @juliaioffe x.com/ellies671/stat…

This is abhorrent and irresponsible. Statements like this are yet another reason there is no peace.