I think I can answer this one. Because circumstances and international laws have changed somewhat over 2200 years.https://twitter.com/HillelNeuer/status/940755997605416960 …
-
-
Except here the League of Nations recognized the indigenous rights of the Jewish people, enshrining in international law "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp …
-
I would never argue Jews don't have a historical connection to the land of Israel (how could you?) or that the modern country should somehow go away. But your link doesn't mention Jerusalem. And Article 13 says League of Nations responsible for holy places. Is that what you want?
-
You argued that the historic ties of the Jewish people to the land of Israel were irrelevant to modern international law. Will you concede that the 1922 League of Nations recognition of the indigenous rights of the Jewish people renders those ancient ties less than irrelevant?
-
Not irrelevant. Never used the world irrelevant and that wasn't an accident. I said not determinant. Meaning not the only relevant factor. Especially regarding the specific legal boundaries of 21st century Jerusalem.
-
Your words on the historic ties were: "How is that relevant?"
-
Scroll up. Look at what I wrote that in response to.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.