Anti-BDS Bill - Bravo

[Hollie]

Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.

Your most compelling cut and paste.

As it is obvious, the fraud you attempted to perpetrate - a mythical 'Pal'istanian' State, was a fraud.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The only thing you have is out of Israel's bullshit playbook.

Sweetie. This has all been addressed for you multiple times across multiple threads.

You're free to selectively rewrite history, but nothing in your wiki cut and paste will retroactively make your mythical Pal'istan a state.

Indeed, you people always shovel Israeli shit without refuting the issues.

Actually, that's just nonsense.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

(COMMENT)

On the termination of the Mandate, midnight 14/15 May 1948, (near) simultaneously (given leeway with the technology of the day), the provisional government, in accordance with the General Assembly Steps Preparatory to Independence, announced its independence. And for a matter of hours, prior to the illegal invasion by the Arab League, the territory, less the newly created Jewish State of Israel, became a legal entity known as the "Former Territory under the Mandate."

That is how thing were done back then and STILL are how thing are done today. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Former Soviet Union" (FSU) after the Collapse of the Soviet Union and before the development of the Russian Federation and breakaway Republics. Similarly, I'm sure you've heard of the "Former Yugoslavia" (Territory of the Former Yugoslavia) before the collapse and subsequent fragmentation into the socialist republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. And there are still two territories we call "autonomous provinces" that remain separate from the remainder of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina).

As you may or may not know, as territorial issues go, the Palestine is fairly cut'n'dry. There are other issues of self-determination that are much more complicated than the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. As an example, the territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia, and the provisional Government of Kosovo, with an ethnic-Albanian population that wishes to exercise self-determination.

You act as if some strange political magic has occurred regarding the "former territory under the Mandate" in the establishment of Israel and the quasi-government of the State of Palestine.

In the late 19th Century, just prior to the Great War, Lord Salisbury said:

"it was a time when territorial boundaries were being drawn across the world with little or no regard for natural or cultural boundaries. These boundaries were designed to reinforce an international system of --- absolute sovereignty --- of the state in which boundaries were derived from geo-military occupation of space as determined by the consenting colonial powers. More than a century later, many of these territorial boundaries remain as they were drawn, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred to the international system and the significant challenges that have been made to the concept of sovereignty with precise boundaries. Yet, these territorial boundaries and the ideas that were behind them, still form the foundations for the present international legal system."
​

In Lord Salisbury's day (former British Prime Minister - Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury), indeed - in the day that most of the political powers --- in the time of the Great War and the division of the Ottoman Empire --- geo-military occupation and control of the territory was the principle for which sovereignty and rule was extended. This is similarly reinforced in a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

It is only the illiterate that try to apply the concepts, values and changes of the 21st Century to the decisions and practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. It would be like trying to criticize Sir Isaac Newton work on Gravity, for not applying the concepts of Einstein's Space-Time.

(THE NON-APPLICABILITY of NSGT DESIGNATION)

The prediction of the establishment of a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) would have been applicable except for the fact that only hours after the termination of the Mandate, the Arab League forcibly entered the territory; and the War of Independence ensued. By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League. There was no NSGT; and it is a question as to whether the was any territory that would have been a separate legal entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

(COMMENT)

On the termination of the Mandate, midnight 14/15 May 1948, (near) simultaneously (given leeway with the technology of the day), the provisional government, in accordance with the General Assembly Steps Preparatory to Independence, announced its independence. And for a matter of hours, prior to the illegal invasion by the Arab League, the territory, less the newly created Jewish State of Israel, became a legal entity known as the "Former Territory under the Mandate."

That is how thing were done back then and STILL are how thing are done today. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Former Soviet Union" (FSU) after the Collapse of the Soviet Union and before the development of the Russian Federation and breakaway Republics. Similarly, I'm sure you've heard of the "Former Yugoslavia" (Territory of the Former Yugoslavia) before the collapse and subsequent fragmentation into the socialist republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. And there are still two territories we call "autonomous provinces" that remain separate from the remainder of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina).

As you may or may not know, as territorial issues go, the Palestine is fairly cut'n'dry. There are other issues of self-determination that are much more complicated than the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. As an example, the territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia, and the provisional Government of Kosovo, with an ethnic-Albanian population that wishes to exercise self-determination.

You act as if some strange political magic has occurred regarding the "former territory under the Mandate" in the establishment of Israel and the quasi-government of the State of Palestine.

In the late 19th Century, just prior to the Great War, Lord Salisbury said:

"it was a time when territorial boundaries were being drawn across the world with little or no regard for natural or cultural boundaries. These boundaries were designed to reinforce an international system of --- absolute sovereignty --- of the state in which boundaries were derived from geo-military occupation of space as determined by the consenting colonial powers. More than a century later, many of these territorial boundaries remain as they were drawn, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred to the international system and the significant challenges that have been made to the concept of sovereignty with precise boundaries. Yet, these territorial boundaries and the ideas that were behind them, still form the foundations for the present international legal system."
​

In Lord Salisbury's day (former British Prime Minister - Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury), indeed - in the day that most of the political powers --- in the time of the Great War and the division of the Ottoman Empire --- geo-military occupation and control of the territory was the principle for which sovereignty and rule was extended. This is similarly reinforced in a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

It is only the illiterate that try to apply the concepts, values and changes of the 21st Century to the decisions and practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. It would be like trying to criticize Sir Isaac Newton work on Gravity, for not applying the concepts of Einstein's Space-Time.

(THE NON-APPLICABILITY of NSGT DESIGNATION)

The prediction of the establishment of a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) would have been applicable except for the fact that only hours after the termination of the Mandate, the Arab League forcibly entered the territory; and the War of Independence ensued. By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League. There was no NSGT; and it is a question as to whether the was any territory that would have been a separate legal entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco the neocolonialist just keeps on spewing justifications for the dispossession of the native people by invading colonists.

It is amazing that there are still people that support colonization and dispossession of native inhabitants by Europeans.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you can take the view, any way you want.

Indeed, you people always shovel Israeli shit without refuting the issues.

(COMMENT)

Article 22 talks about "certain communities." It does not say "all communities." It certainly does not promise the Arabs Palestinians anything, as it does not mention "Palestine" (or Transjordan) at all; nor are the provisions of the Covenant applicable to the Arab, as they were not a party to the Covenant.

Actually, the boundaries are those as determined by the Allied Powers and not some facet of the Arab Community, the Arab Higher Committee, or the Arab League.

The Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) indicated that the British as the Mandatory, was the effective Government of Palestine, and not some unidentified Arab Authority with no capacity to settle the debt in question before the court. Under what foolishness, do you suppose the PICJ would be if it ruled in favor of the plaintiff --- and then ordered a non-existent government to pay damages. No, you have it wrong. The successor government to the Ottoman Authorities was the Mandatory assigned by the Allied Powers.

There is little doubt, that in a WAR that was initiated by the Arab Community in 1948, and perpetuated until this day (nearly 7 decades later) that there are probably some legitimate Arab-Palestinian claims to put forward toward the Jewish State of Israel. But let there be no mistake, Israel is not going to agree to any settlement proffered by the Arab Palestinians that would ultimately spell the destruction of the Jewish National Home. And in not recognizing that, the Arab Palestinians are merely indefinitely extending the conflict into the future. Lacking any alternative (other than political and cultural suicide) the Israelis will simply maintain the status quo, and gradually develop the :Area "C" territory until the situation become untenable.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

(COMMENT)

On the termination of the Mandate, midnight 14/15 May 1948, (near) simultaneously (given leeway with the technology of the day), the provisional government, in accordance with the General Assembly Steps Preparatory to Independence, announced its independence. And for a matter of hours, prior to the illegal invasion by the Arab League, the territory, less the newly created Jewish State of Israel, became a legal entity known as the "Former Territory under the Mandate."

That is how thing were done back then and STILL are how thing are done today. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Former Soviet Union" (FSU) after the Collapse of the Soviet Union and before the development of the Russian Federation and breakaway Republics. Similarly, I'm sure you've heard of the "Former Yugoslavia" (Territory of the Former Yugoslavia) before the collapse and subsequent fragmentation into the socialist republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. And there are still two territories we call "autonomous provinces" that remain separate from the remainder of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina).

As you may or may not know, as territorial issues go, the Palestine is fairly cut'n'dry. There are other issues of self-determination that are much more complicated than the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. As an example, the territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia, and the provisional Government of Kosovo, with an ethnic-Albanian population that wishes to exercise self-determination.

You act as if some strange political magic has occurred regarding the "former territory under the Mandate" in the establishment of Israel and the quasi-government of the State of Palestine.

In the late 19th Century, just prior to the Great War, Lord Salisbury said:

"it was a time when territorial boundaries were being drawn across the world with little or no regard for natural or cultural boundaries. These boundaries were designed to reinforce an international system of --- absolute sovereignty --- of the state in which boundaries were derived from geo-military occupation of space as determined by the consenting colonial powers. More than a century later, many of these territorial boundaries remain as they were drawn, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred to the international system and the significant challenges that have been made to the concept of sovereignty with precise boundaries. Yet, these territorial boundaries and the ideas that were behind them, still form the foundations for the present international legal system."
​

In Lord Salisbury's day (former British Prime Minister - Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury), indeed - in the day that most of the political powers --- in the time of the Great War and the division of the Ottoman Empire --- geo-military occupation and control of the territory was the principle for which sovereignty and rule was extended. This is similarly reinforced in a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

It is only the illiterate that try to apply the concepts, values and changes of the 21st Century to the decisions and practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. It would be like trying to criticize Sir Isaac Newton work on Gravity, for not applying the concepts of Einstein's Space-Time.

(THE NON-APPLICABILITY of NSGT DESIGNATION)

The prediction of the establishment of a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) would have been applicable except for the fact that only hours after the termination of the Mandate, the Arab League forcibly entered the territory; and the War of Independence ensued. By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League. There was no NSGT; and it is a question as to whether the was any territory that would have been a separate legal entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco the neocolonialist just keeps on spewing justifications for the dispossession of the native people by invading colonists.

It is amazing that there are still people that support colonization and dispossession of native inhabitants by Europeans.

What a shame you flail your Pom Poms for the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese colonists / invaders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

(COMMENT)

On the termination of the Mandate, midnight 14/15 May 1948, (near) simultaneously (given leeway with the technology of the day), the provisional government, in accordance with the General Assembly Steps Preparatory to Independence, announced its independence. And for a matter of hours, prior to the illegal invasion by the Arab League, the territory, less the newly created Jewish State of Israel, became a legal entity known as the "Former Territory under the Mandate."

That is how thing were done back then and STILL are how thing are done today. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Former Soviet Union" (FSU) after the Collapse of the Soviet Union and before the development of the Russian Federation and breakaway Republics. Similarly, I'm sure you've heard of the "Former Yugoslavia" (Territory of the Former Yugoslavia) before the collapse and subsequent fragmentation into the socialist republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. And there are still two territories we call "autonomous provinces" that remain separate from the remainder of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina).

As you may or may not know, as territorial issues go, the Palestine is fairly cut'n'dry. There are other issues of self-determination that are much more complicated than the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. As an example, the territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia, and the provisional Government of Kosovo, with an ethnic-Albanian population that wishes to exercise self-determination.

You act as if some strange political magic has occurred regarding the "former territory under the Mandate" in the establishment of Israel and the quasi-government of the State of Palestine.

In the late 19th Century, just prior to the Great War, Lord Salisbury said:

"it was a time when territorial boundaries were being drawn across the world with little or no regard for natural or cultural boundaries. These boundaries were designed to reinforce an international system of --- absolute sovereignty --- of the state in which boundaries were derived from geo-military occupation of space as determined by the consenting colonial powers. More than a century later, many of these territorial boundaries remain as they were drawn, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred to the international system and the significant challenges that have been made to the concept of sovereignty with precise boundaries. Yet, these territorial boundaries and the ideas that were behind them, still form the foundations for the present international legal system."
​

In Lord Salisbury's day (former British Prime Minister - Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury), indeed - in the day that most of the political powers --- in the time of the Great War and the division of the Ottoman Empire --- geo-military occupation and control of the territory was the principle for which sovereignty and rule was extended. This is similarly reinforced in a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

It is only the illiterate that try to apply the concepts, values and changes of the 21st Century to the decisions and practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. It would be like trying to criticize Sir Isaac Newton work on Gravity, for not applying the concepts of Einstein's Space-Time.

(THE NON-APPLICABILITY of NSGT DESIGNATION)

The prediction of the establishment of a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) would have been applicable except for the fact that only hours after the termination of the Mandate, the Arab League forcibly entered the territory; and the War of Independence ensued. By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League. There was no NSGT; and it is a question as to whether the was any territory that would have been a separate legal entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

(COMMENT)

On the termination of the Mandate, midnight 14/15 May 1948, (near) simultaneously (given leeway with the technology of the day), the provisional government, in accordance with the General Assembly Steps Preparatory to Independence, announced its independence. And for a matter of hours, prior to the illegal invasion by the Arab League, the territory, less the newly created Jewish State of Israel, became a legal entity known as the "Former Territory under the Mandate."

That is how thing were done back then and STILL are how thing are done today. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Former Soviet Union" (FSU) after the Collapse of the Soviet Union and before the development of the Russian Federation and breakaway Republics. Similarly, I'm sure you've heard of the "Former Yugoslavia" (Territory of the Former Yugoslavia) before the collapse and subsequent fragmentation into the socialist republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. And there are still two territories we call "autonomous provinces" that remain separate from the remainder of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina).

As you may or may not know, as territorial issues go, the Palestine is fairly cut'n'dry. There are other issues of self-determination that are much more complicated than the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. As an example, the territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia, and the provisional Government of Kosovo, with an ethnic-Albanian population that wishes to exercise self-determination.

You act as if some strange political magic has occurred regarding the "former territory under the Mandate" in the establishment of Israel and the quasi-government of the State of Palestine.

In the late 19th Century, just prior to the Great War, Lord Salisbury said:

"it was a time when territorial boundaries were being drawn across the world with little or no regard for natural or cultural boundaries. These boundaries were designed to reinforce an international system of --- absolute sovereignty --- of the state in which boundaries were derived from geo-military occupation of space as determined by the consenting colonial powers. More than a century later, many of these territorial boundaries remain as they were drawn, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred to the international system and the significant challenges that have been made to the concept of sovereignty with precise boundaries. Yet, these territorial boundaries and the ideas that were behind them, still form the foundations for the present international legal system."
​

In Lord Salisbury's day (former British Prime Minister - Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury), indeed - in the day that most of the political powers --- in the time of the Great War and the division of the Ottoman Empire --- geo-military occupation and control of the territory was the principle for which sovereignty and rule was extended. This is similarly reinforced in a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

It is only the illiterate that try to apply the concepts, values and changes of the 21st Century to the decisions and practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. It would be like trying to criticize Sir Isaac Newton work on Gravity, for not applying the concepts of Einstein's Space-Time.

(THE NON-APPLICABILITY of NSGT DESIGNATION)

The prediction of the establishment of a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) would have been applicable except for the fact that only hours after the termination of the Mandate, the Arab League forcibly entered the territory; and the War of Independence ensued. By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League. There was no NSGT; and it is a question as to whether the was any territory that would have been a separate legal entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League.​

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[81]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Occupation does not change a state's legal status.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you can take the view, any way you want.

Indeed, you people always shovel Israeli shit without refuting the issues.

(COMMENT)

Article 22 talks about "certain communities." It does not say "all communities." It certainly does not promise the Arabs Palestinians anything, as it does not mention "Palestine" (or Transjordan) at all; nor are the provisions of the Covenant applicable to the Arab, as they were not a party to the Covenant.

Actually, the boundaries are those as determined by the Allied Powers and not some facet of the Arab Community, the Arab Higher Committee, or the Arab League.

The Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) indicated that the British as the Mandatory, was the effective Government of Palestine, and not some unidentified Arab Authority with no capacity to settle the debt in question before the court. Under what foolishness, do you suppose the PICJ would be if it ruled in favor of the plaintiff --- and then ordered a non-existent government to pay damages. No, you have it wrong. The successor government to the Ottoman Authorities was the Mandatory assigned by the Allied Powers.

There is little doubt, that in a WAR that was initiated by the Arab Community in 1948, and perpetuated until this day (nearly 7 decades later) that there are probably some legitimate Arab-Palestinian claims to put forward toward the Jewish State of Israel. But let there be no mistake, Israel is not going to agree to any settlement proffered by the Arab Palestinians that would ultimately spell the destruction of the Jewish National Home. And in not recognizing that, the Arab Palestinians are merely indefinitely extending the conflict into the future. Lacking any alternative (other than political and cultural suicide) the Israelis will simply maintain the status quo, and gradually develop the :Area "C" territory until the situation become untenable.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) indicated that the British as the Mandatory, was the effective Government of Palestine, and not some unidentified Arab Authority with no capacity to settle the debt in question before the court.​

Britain was the trustee. It was responsible for that kind of stuff. There is no other relevance.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

What, it that your new word for the "quarter" --- "dispossession?"

You can try to apply todays idea of "dispossession" to the decisions made a 100 years ago; but, it will not change a thing.

Rocco the neocolonialist just keeps on spewing justifications for the dispossession of the native people by invading colonists.

It is amazing that there are still people that support colonization and dispossession of native inhabitants by Europeans.

(COMMENT)

You can pretend all you want that the Jewish Immigrants attacked the British Mandatory that encouraged immigration in a "violent entry of a force from one state into the territory of another state for purposes that may be political and military, i.e. strategic, of merely tactical." (Page 61, ICRC Dictionary of the International Law of Armed Conflict) But at the end of the day, it will be recognized that it is nothing more than unnecessary sensationalization for sympathy.

Telling it like it is, is not the same as a justification describing an invariable outcome. Anyone that think that the Israelis are just going to capitulate to the Arab Palestinians just because they think the law was unfair to them a century ago, is barking up the wrong tree.

The Arab Palestinian leaders can hold back the progress and development of their people for as long as they want. It will not make that much difference to the Israelis. The priority is the defense, protection, security and preservation (DPSP) for the Jewish National Home. No matter what the whining and complaining of the Arab Palestinian, the DPSP will still be the principle objective of the Israeli.

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome. The DPSP would still be the imperative.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you can take the view, any way you want.

Indeed, you people always shovel Israeli shit without refuting the issues.

(COMMENT)

Article 22 talks about "certain communities." It does not say "all communities." It certainly does not promise the Arabs Palestinians anything, as it does not mention "Palestine" (or Transjordan) at all; nor are the provisions of the Covenant applicable to the Arab, as they were not a party to the Covenant.

Actually, the boundaries are those as determined by the Allied Powers and not some facet of the Arab Community, the Arab Higher Committee, or the Arab League.

The Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) indicated that the British as the Mandatory, was the effective Government of Palestine, and not some unidentified Arab Authority with no capacity to settle the debt in question before the court. Under what foolishness, do you suppose the PICJ would be if it ruled in favor of the plaintiff --- and then ordered a non-existent government to pay damages. No, you have it wrong. The successor government to the Ottoman Authorities was the Mandatory assigned by the Allied Powers.

There is little doubt, that in a WAR that was initiated by the Arab Community in 1948, and perpetuated until this day (nearly 7 decades later) that there are probably some legitimate Arab-Palestinian claims to put forward toward the Jewish State of Israel. But let there be no mistake, Israel is not going to agree to any settlement proffered by the Arab Palestinians that would ultimately spell the destruction of the Jewish National Home. And in not recognizing that, the Arab Palestinians are merely indefinitely extending the conflict into the future. Lacking any alternative (other than political and cultural suicide) the Israelis will simply maintain the status quo, and gradually develop the :Area "C" territory until the situation become untenable.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is little doubt, that in a WAR that was initiated by the Arab Community in 1948,​

And where, exactly, did the Arabs enter Israel to start this war?

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

What, it that your new word for the "quarter" --- "dispossession?"

You can try to apply todays idea of "dispossession" to the decisions made a 100 years ago; but, it will not change a thing.

Rocco the neocolonialist just keeps on spewing justifications for the dispossession of the native people by invading colonists.

It is amazing that there are still people that support colonization and dispossession of native inhabitants by Europeans.

(COMMENT)

You can pretend all you want that the Jewish Immigrants attacked the British Mandatory that encouraged immigration in a "violent entry of a force from one state into the territory of another state for purposes that may be political and military, i.e. strategic, of merely tactical." (Page 61, ICRC Dictionary of the International Law of Armed Conflict) But at the end of the day, it will be recognized that it is nothing more than unnecessary sensationalization for sympathy.

Telling it like it is, is not the same as a justification describing an invariable outcome. Anyone that think that the Israelis are just going to capitulate to the Arab Palestinians just because they think the law was unfair to them a century ago, is barking up the wrong tree.

The Arab Palestinian leaders can hold back the progress and development of their people for as long as they want. It will not make that much difference to the Israelis. The priority is the defense, protection, security and preservation (DPSP) for the Jewish National Home. No matter what the whining and complaining of the Arab Palestinian, the DPSP will still be the principle objective of the Israeli.

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome. The DPSP would still be the imperative.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome.​

They didn't have to. Palestine was already under military occupation by allied forces.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

What, it that your new word for the "quarter" --- "dispossession?"

You can try to apply todays idea of "dispossession" to the decisions made a 100 years ago; but, it will not change a thing.

Rocco the neocolonialist just keeps on spewing justifications for the dispossession of the native people by invading colonists.

It is amazing that there are still people that support colonization and dispossession of native inhabitants by Europeans.

(COMMENT)

You can pretend all you want that the Jewish Immigrants attacked the British Mandatory that encouraged immigration in a "violent entry of a force from one state into the territory of another state for purposes that may be political and military, i.e. strategic, of merely tactical." (Page 61, ICRC Dictionary of the International Law of Armed Conflict) But at the end of the day, it will be recognized that it is nothing more than unnecessary sensationalization for sympathy.

Telling it like it is, is not the same as a justification describing an invariable outcome. Anyone that think that the Israelis are just going to capitulate to the Arab Palestinians just because they think the law was unfair to them a century ago, is barking up the wrong tree.

The Arab Palestinian leaders can hold back the progress and development of their people for as long as they want. It will not make that much difference to the Israelis. The priority is the defense, protection, security and preservation (DPSP) for the Jewish National Home. No matter what the whining and complaining of the Arab Palestinian, the DPSP will still be the principle objective of the Israeli.

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome. The DPSP would still be the imperative.

Most Respectfully,
R

The priority is the defense, protection, security and preservation (DPSP) for the Jewish National Home.​

Israel needs to defend its colonial project.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

this is 100% true.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[81]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Occupation does not change a state's legal status.

(COMMENT)

But remember. There was no Palestinian State. The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.
​

The Stimson Doctine applies to a country that was once self-governing and sovereign, that was completely overrun by a hostile opponent. It does not apply to a territory was was non-self-governing to start with and effectively taken over by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Article 2(4) of the Charter is the applicable Law (an echelon above American Doctrine).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly,

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome.

They didn't have to. Palestine was already under military occupation by allied forces.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants did not make an invasion. The immigration was facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all rights and title.

For some reason, you Arab Palestinians are desperately trying to make some foundation that there was either:

• Some express promise of sovereignty and independence made to a specific aspect of Arab;
• There was some previous Arab government beyond that of the Ottoman Empire that exercised Arab Sovereignty.
​

The Arab Palestinian has no previous claim to the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

this is 100% true.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[81]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Occupation does not change a state's legal status.

(COMMENT)

But remember. There was no Palestinian State. The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.
​

The Stimson Doctine applies to a country that was once self-governing and sovereign, that was completely overrun by a hostile opponent. It does not apply to a territory was was non-self-governing to start with and effectively taken over by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Article 2(4) of the Charter is the applicable Law (an echelon above American Doctrine).

Most Respectfully,
R

At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly,

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome.

They didn't have to. Palestine was already under military occupation by allied forces.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants did not make an invasion. The immigration was facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all rights and title.

For some reason, you Arab Palestinians are desperately trying to make some foundation that there was either:

• Some express promise of sovereignty and independence made to a specific aspect of Arab;
• There was some previous Arab government beyond that of the Ottoman Empire that exercised Arab Sovereignty.
​

The Arab Palestinian has no previous claim to the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish Immigrants did not make an invasion.​

Yes they did. They mooched Britain's military to cover for them.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Too funny.

The priority is the defense, protection, security and preservation (DPSP) for the Jewish National Home.

Israel needs to defend its colonial project.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish National Home (JNH) was a directive of the Allied Powers from the San Remo Convention. Without regard to whatever the "colonial project" you might make reference, the official authority over the future and disposition of that territory was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

The fact that the Jewish vision and the Allied Powers disposition where the same is irrelevant. The Jewish Immigration and the Jewish National Home were a product of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al

No matter!

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful. There were no areas under the sovereign control of the Israelis that were in conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly,

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome.

They didn't have to. Palestine was already under military occupation by allied forces.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants did not make an invasion. The immigration was facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all rights and title.

For some reason, you Arab Palestinians are desperately trying to make some foundation that there was either:

• Some express promise of sovereignty and independence made to a specific aspect of Arab;
• There was some previous Arab government beyond that of the Ottoman Empire that exercised Arab Sovereignty.
​

The Arab Palestinian has no previous claim to the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh, to the contrary. Palestine is a successor state defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the legal citizens according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and domestic law. The Palestinians are the people of the place with all of the rights of "a people" in a defined territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

No matter!

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful. There were no areas under the sovereign control of the Israelis that were in conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that Israel's occupation of Palestine was peaceful?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.

The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?

(COMMENT)

Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.

(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)

IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.

(COMMENT)

Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.

The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.

The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:

The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
​

However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.

During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.

(A VIEW POINT)

Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “

Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.​

And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.

*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.

Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.

The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.

I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.

No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.

See, that wasn't so hard was it?

Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.

Spelt out very clearly that Palestine was not a state under any international laws extant at that time. Why do you have so much trouble understanding this very simple fact. Your POV has been destroyed by the words of the UN, LoN, mandate of Palestine and the world powers and still you insist that you and the islamonazi liar are the only people that are right because the liar altered international treaties