Sabitlenmiş Tweet
your points are irrelevant under international law, which doesn't condition human rights on membership in a racial, religion, or ethnic group, or condition guaranteed residency rights on ancient ancestry.
more explicitly:
1. by int'l law, modern nations belong to citizens, not to races, religions, or ethnicities
2. self determination doesn't apply to races, religions, or ethnicities (i.e. Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, Jews, etc); it applies to all people with permanent residency rights in a contiguous territory, not to a subset of people who want to slice and dice the territory to exclude others
3. by int'l law, inalienable residency rights are transmitted via immediate blood ties, not religious, racial, or ethnic affiliation; countries can add residency rights based on other factors, but not remove or de-prioritize the one based on immediate blood ties
4. human rights are vested in individuals, not groups, and do not depend on any group membership; human rights also supersede national aspirations, so the rights of all legal residents to be treated equally in Israel and its occupied territories, supersedes Israel's aspirations to have or preserve a Jewish majority
5. just like India doesn't belong to Hindus, and Utah doesn't belong to Mormons, Israel shouldn't belong to Jews but to its citizens
6. Palestinians are from Palestine like Egyptians are5from Egypt (neither has their own unique language, race or religion); Palestinian residency rights are therefore based on int'l law, i.e. based on recent multi-generational residency, not based on residency of remote ancestors inferred from religious affiliation or genetics
7. Israel defines itself differently than every other country (and certainly every other Western democracy), as belonging to a religious group, instead of to its citizens
8. when we say France belongs to the French, that legally means France belongs to all French citizens, whereas Israel supposedly doesn't belong to all Israeli citizens, but to Jews around the world, many of whom aren't Zionist or have no ties to Israel
9. saying Palestinians belong in Jordan, is like saying Texans belong in California; a Palestinian from Ramallah belongs in Ramallah, not somewhere in Jordan, just like an American from Houston belongs in Houston, not somewhere in California
10. when Israel says it belongs to all Jews, that implies it doesn't also belong to its non-Jewish citizens, which is contrary to int'l law
11. just like France belongs to all French citizens equally, including French Jews, Israel should belong to all its citizens equally, including non-Jewish Israelis
12. the 1947 partition resolution was non-binding, barely passed, and consisted of a bizarre slicing and dicing of Palestine to achieve a demographic goal of giving Israel as much land as possible, but with as few non-Jews as possible; so was clearly an attempt at apartheid and rigging an artificial Jewish majority
13. the 1947 partition consists of a 3-by-2 checkerboard topology, where each of the 3 black parts only touches other black parts at single points, and the same for the 3 white parts; the partition map is actually an example of apartheid that predates South African apartheid
14. according to various conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human rights, and the ICPPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), countries cannot discriminate against their citizens based on race, religion, or national origin; Israel's definition as the state of the Jews, therefore is contrary to int'l law
15. Israel has no right to demand Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, in order for Palestinians to be granted their inalienable human rights; human rights aren't contingent on recognizing states that define themselves in contradiction to int'l law, or even on recognizing any state regardless of how it defines itself
16. if Israel belongs to all Jews as Zionists argue, what would happen if 10 million Chinese converted to Judaism? Would they all have the right to move to Israel?
English
