Ambassadors protest at Israel's confiscation of West Bank shelters

Of course the purpose for this lie is to deny that they stole Palestine because nobody owned it.

You really do have trouble with the concept of "owning" vs. the concept of "sovereignty over". They are two entirely different concepts. I own the plot of land upon which I live. My little plot of land is under the sovereignty of the State of Canada. It would be most beneficial if you used the correct terms.

The Ottoman Empire was sovereign over the territory. That sovereignty was dissolved and ceased to exist. New sovereignty arose from the treaties subsequently written and agreed to by the sovereigns.

Your argument is that the new sovereigns were the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. It was a large Empire which was subsequently broken into smaller pieces based on the self-identification of the groups of the inhabitants -- who became the new sovereigns.

One of those groups of new sovereigns was the Jewish people. So how can it be said that the Jewish people "STOLE" land when they were one of the sovereign groups to which the new sovereignties applied?
Your argument is that the new sovereigns were the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. It was a large Empire which was subsequently broken into smaller pieces based on the self-identification of the groups of the inhabitants -- who became the new sovereigns.​

That is correct. Read article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The inhabitants were to be brought to independence. The people who were not the inhabitants of their place, like those living in Europe, were outside of that group. They did not live there.







WRONG as article 22 does not say that at all, here it is in ful


To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire 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.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.




What state ruled over the palestinians prior to 1917 ?

Why did the arab muslims refuse the offer of tutelage ?

Why wern't the arab muslims of 22% of palestine seen as being ready for statehood and were then offered passage to the 78% that was ?

Why did the arab muslims living on the 22% of palestine granted for the Jewish NATIONal home fall into the highlighted part of the Article 22 ?

Why did the arab muslims of the 22% of palestine granted as the Jewish national home fall into the part highlighted in red ?

Did the LoN not agree on the level of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory ?

Only some inhabitants of some places of the former Ottoman empire, palestine was never mentioned in any of the article's because it was never ruled by another soveriegn nation.
 
No I am back to proven irrefutable facts based on evidence and historical record, what do you have other than islamonazo propaganda, islamic BLOOD LIBELS and neo marxist outright lies ?


Where are you links giving the evidence of your claims that are repeated from more than one source. All you have is the words of an islamonazi that twists treaties and laws till they meet his POV
Pffft! :bs1:

What do you have besides Israeli talking points?







What Isreali talking points are those then, as all I post is truth backed up by mulitple links to international law and historical data.

What do you have other that islamonazi talking points and islamofascist propaganda ?
Israel exists on lies. The first whopper was "a land without people for a people without land." Israel has always denied the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians. Of course this flies in the face of actual history. Yet it has been spouted a gazillion time so many actually believe it. Tell a lie often enough...

Of course the purpose for this lie is to deny that they stole Palestine because nobody owned it.






Prove it is a LIE then, and not just flap your gums spouting islamofascist propaganda. The evidenced available from many sources says that the WHOLE of palestine was a wasteland waiting to be populated and reborn. Produce your evidence from multiple sources or admit that it is just propaganda. As you say tell a LIE often enough and even the LIAR starts to believe it.


The Ottomans owned it until 1917 when they lost it as reparations for war. Then it passed into LoN hands who allocated the lands they owned and had sovereignty over to the people who lived there. This included offering the Jews all of Palestine for their national home, that was the land on both sides of the Jordan. This was changed to just the west bank of the jordan from the border determined with Egypr all the way to the borders determined with Lebanon and Syria. The arab muslims were given the East bank lands of palestine and there was a clause that prohibited Jees from living in The east and arab muslkims from living in the west. Thus the land then became Jewish and arab seperated by the Jordan river.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS AS PRESENTED THOUSANDS OF TIMES, STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVIDE REBUTTALS FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.
Why did the Zionists accept part of Palestine in 1947 when they received the whole pie thirty years earlier?

You don't make any sense.





Because some pie is better than no pie at all, and there was always the chance the invading arab muslims would be beaten back rendering it all to the Jews by default. This very nearly happened and the UN had to step in to halt the Israeli advance and save some face for the arab league being destroyed by farmers with farm tools taking on a modern army.

Nothing makes sense to you as you are an islamonazi propagandist that sees it as if I cant have it all I will fight till I do or die in the process. Leaving yourself with nothing to fight for and losing every time, piling more and more naqba's on top of each other.
 
Of course the purpose for this lie is to deny that they stole Palestine because nobody owned it.

You really do have trouble with the concept of "owning" vs. the concept of "sovereignty over". They are two entirely different concepts. I own the plot of land upon which I live. My little plot of land is under the sovereignty of the State of Canada. It would be most beneficial if you used the correct terms.

The Ottoman Empire was sovereign over the territory. That sovereignty was dissolved and ceased to exist. New sovereignty arose from the treaties subsequently written and agreed to by the sovereigns.

Your argument is that the new sovereigns were the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. It was a large Empire which was subsequently broken into smaller pieces based on the self-identification of the groups of the inhabitants -- who became the new sovereigns.

One of those groups of new sovereigns was the Jewish people. So how can it be said that the Jewish people "STOLE" land when they were one of the sovereign groups to which the new sovereignties applied?
Your argument is that the new sovereigns were the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. It was a large Empire which was subsequently broken into smaller pieces based on the self-identification of the groups of the inhabitants -- who became the new sovereigns.​

That is correct. Read article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The inhabitants were to be brought to independence. The people who were not the inhabitants of their place, like those living in Europe, were outside of that group. They did not live there.

I can recall multiple instances wherein it was explained to you that the islamist entity chose not to participate in the mechanism of bringing the inhabitants to independence.

Do you suffer from a learning disability?





Just palestinian mentallity of if I cant have I will make it so the other side pays dear.
 
...
One of those groups of new sovereigns was the Jewish people. So how can it be said that the Jewish people "STOLE" land when they were one of the sovereign groups to which the new sovereignties applied?
Your argument is that the new sovereigns were the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. It was a large Empire which was subsequently broken into smaller pieces based on the self-identification of the groups of the inhabitants -- who became the new sovereigns.​

That is correct. Read article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The inhabitants were to be brought to independence. The people who were not the inhabitants of their place, like those living in Europe, were outside of that group. They did not live there.

I do not see anything in Article 22 which prevents the Jewish people from being acknowledged as one of those groups of inhabitants who were to be brought to independence and sovereignty. (And indeed there are quite a number of other legal instruments which explicitly state the rights of the Jewish people in ALL of that territory). Therefore, I find your accusation that the Jewish people "stole" land to be in contradiction to your own argument. How can one steal land to which one has rights?
 
...
One of those groups of new sovereigns was the Jewish people. So how can it be said that the Jewish people "STOLE" land when they were one of the sovereign groups to which the new sovereignties applied?
Your argument is that the new sovereigns were the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. It was a large Empire which was subsequently broken into smaller pieces based on the self-identification of the groups of the inhabitants -- who became the new sovereigns.​

That is correct. Read article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The inhabitants were to be brought to independence. The people who were not the inhabitants of their place, like those living in Europe, were outside of that group. They did not live there.

I do not see anything in Article 22 which prevents the Jewish people from being acknowledged as one of those groups of inhabitants who were to be brought to independence and sovereignty. (And indeed there are quite a number of other legal instruments which explicitly state the rights of the Jewish people in ALL of that territory). Therefore, I find your accusation that the Jewish people "stole" land to be in contradiction to your own argument. How can one steal land to which one has rights?






In fact it reinforces that right and makes it legal for the Jews to declare independence of the arab muslims terrorists
 

Forum List

Back
Top