Breaking The Last Taboo - Gaza And The Threat Of World War

[montelatici]

Phoenall, et al,

I think you have confused your terminology and timeline.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

(COMMENT)

Who "owns" the land is a civil real estate issue; with nothing to do with sovereignty.

In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the West Bank and engaged Jordanian Forces on Jordanian territory (annexed in 1951). Israeli Forces routed the Jordanian Forces and Occupied the West Bank. In 1988, Jordan severed all ties and governance over the West Bank. In 1993, by means of Article 3 of the Israel-Jordanian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.

In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the Gaza Strip which was occupied by Egyptian Forces. The Egyptian Forces were routed and Israeli Forces assumed the occupation. In 1979, by means of Article II of the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Most Respectfully,
R

"In 1967, in a preemptive strike "

Like Pearl Harbor.

 

[TheOldSchool]

If humanity is so dumb that WW3 is fought because of a tiny 8,158 square miles of land then we deserve it.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

So which state transferred territory to the arab muslims in Palestine, and were is the title deed or treaty signed by all parties accepting the territory. Don't try your usual treaties that don't mention Palestine by name other than in the context of "the British mandate of Palestine hereinafter called Palestine "

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

No, the Palestinians have no rights in Israel except for basic human rights.

Let's see, should I believe treaties and international law?

Or should I believe you?

Hmmm, decisions, decisions.

Strange how they have all those rights you say they don't and refuse to exercise them. I don't think you understand exactly what those rights mean, and believe they mean the Jews have no rights to their land because the Palestinians have all these rights. Now which treaties and International law takes away the Jews rights granted under International law and Treaties and gives them all to the arab muslim palestinians

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

So which state transferred territory to the arab muslims in Palestine, and were is the title deed or treaty signed by all parties accepting the territory. Don't try your usual treaties that don't mention Palestine by name other than in the context of "the British mandate of Palestine hereinafter called Palestine "

If transferred, it would have been transferred to the Palestine Arab Delegation made up of Christians and Muslims, which were the contracting party vis-a-vis the Mandatory. The other party being the Zionist Organization as per below:

PALESTINE.​

​

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​

​

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These few rules don't really give much to the Palestinians.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The territory under consideration (later to be known as "The Mandate of Palestine") was transferred to the Allied Powers; not the people of Palestine. The "Successor Governments" were determined by the "Allied Powers" via the League of Nations and the subsequence United Nations. For the purposes of the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne, the issues of "Nationality" were actually addressed and predate the Treaty, in the "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." As the territorial Mandate of Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty, and no conflicts arise from the treaty, nothing in the treaty (having be written by the very same Allied Powers) grants the Palestinians anything not addressed by the Allied Powers; it changes nothing.

• The Allied Powers defined the territory. The Palestinians did NOT define the territory. Therefore, there is a conflict in the reasoning that the "Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory" - when --- if point of fact --- it was a territory defined by the Allied Powers.
• The dual rights of "independence and sovereignty" --- and --- "self determination without external interference" were exercised once in 1950 (when the Palestinians of the West Bank ascended to Jordanian sovereignty) and again in 1988 (when declared independence).
• The right to territorial integrity is undefined, as they have not formally established a Treaty with any other sovereign nation on the matter of permanent international boundaries. The recognition of the State of Palestine is provisionally based on the demarcation lines by the UN in the Affirmation in the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.

The foregoing addresses your four points. But it must be clear that nothing in the Declaration of Human Rights (A/RES/3/217 A - 1948) may be interpreted as implying that the Palestinian has any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of the Israeli people.

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Borders --- PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)

And I believe that you have consistently failed to recognize the evolution of the current dispute, and the focus of the differences. You cannot keep rolling back the clock to a time of your choosing. You have to deal within the parameters of the here and now; not what might have been or should have been. Any settlement of the disputes has to be in a much more real and recent context.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

The first sign that you are starting to understand that you have lost this argument is your immature name calling.

The evolution is the timeline and what happened from 1910 to the present day. The arab muslims were give made promises by the LoN and allies that they would remove the yoke of Ottoman control and grant them nations of their own in return for help in defeating the Ottomans. This the arab muslims, Christians and Jews of the M.E. did and were successful. The first nation to be granted was Syria followed by Iraq and then trans Jordan. This left about 10% of the land mass of the former mandate of Palestine for the Jews to recreate their NATIONAL HOME, an aspect of customary International law. The arab muslims and Christians still had their free determination to either stay and become Israeli citizens or move to one of the other arab muslim nations. The arab muslims fuelled with arab nationalism refused and demanded that the whole of Palestine be given to them OR ELSE. As is the case with arab muslims it is always a case of OR ELSE because they are just bullies, and this time their bluff was called. This started a series of attacks on the Jews and Christians living in Palestine that culminated in the Hebron massacre and shortly afterwards the civil war in Palestine. Then WW2 came and the arab muslims started to flood Palestine with extremists and jihadi's to combat the Jews. After WW2 the Jews started to migrate to Palestine in earnest and the arab muslims complained and forced the British to break the terms of the mandate and block any more Jewish migration. The Jews by this time were more organised and had acquired weapons from their service in WW2 and formed into militia groups to defend the Jews from arab muslim attacks. In 1946 the U.N. was formed and it took in the now defunct LoN and all of its powers and treaties. This led to U.N. res 181 that partitioned Palestine into Jewish and arab muslim areas, the arab muslims once again refused to have anything to do with this and denied the resolution, instead declaring war on the Jews. The British no longer had the heart or money to govern Palestine and handed the mandate back to the U.N on may 13/14 and the Jews declared independence at the same time.

That is the timeline to the formation of Israel, from then on the arab muslims have been at war with Israel and have never rescinded it. The Palestinians need to abide by the many resolutions and agree mutual borders and a stable peace before the U.N steps in and forces borders and peace on them. They have signed to abide by the U.N. rules and this is one of them

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

While it is a legitimate discussion on the wisdom and the practical merit on the current 1000 acre proposal, the legitimacy is govern by something entirely different.

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times before, Area "C" appropriations are covered under the Oslo Accords. Any dispute you have with the Oslo Accord are to be handled through the dispute resolution process which the Palestinians have yet to engage.

Is it "illegal?" You have to look at what the Palestinians agreed to in the Oslo Accords, in comparison to the proposal.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Oslo accords never gave Israel rights to expropriate land.


Oslo a missed opportunity - Israel Opinion Ynetnews
The Palestinians are threatening to cancel the Oslo Accords. On the Israeli side, unbridled attacks on the agreement have crossed all red lines. They stem from maliciousness, distortion of facts, lack of understanding and ignorance of those who want to hide and blur the truth.
Oslo introduced the basic principles for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a "destiny" which no government can avoid. The entire world recognizes the Palestinians' right to their own state. This is mentioned in the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. Eventually, a Palestinian state will be established in spite of the efforts of those who are against it. The only alternative is a bi-national democratic state, a solution that would signify the end of Zionism.

Here you go sunshine exactly what Oslo says


Key agreements[edit]
Key agreements in the Oslo process were:

• Israel–PLO letters of recognition (1993). Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO.

• The Oslo I Accord (1993). The "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements", which declared the aim of the negotiations and set forth the framework for the interim period. Dissolution of the Israeli Civil Administration upon the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Article VII).

• The Gaza–Jericho Agreement or Cairo Agreement (1994). Partial Israeli withdrawal within three weeks from Gaza Strip and Jericho area, being the start of the five-year transitional period (Article V of Oslo I). Simultaneously transfer of limited power to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established in the same agreement.[4] Part of the Agreement was the Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol), which regulates the economic relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but in effect integrated the Palestinian economy into the Israeli one.[10] This agreement was superseded by the Oslo II Accord, except for Article XX (Confidence-Building Measures). Article XX dictated the release or turn over of Palestinian detainees and prisoners by Israel. The Paris Protocol was incorporated in Article XXIV of Oslo II.

• The Oslo II Accord (1995). Division of the West Bank into Areas, in effect fragmenting it into numerous enclaves and banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank. Redeployment of Israeli troops from Area A and from other areas through "Further Redeployments". Election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Palestinian parlement, PLC), replacing the PA upon its inauguration. Deployment of Palestinian Police replacing Israeli military forces in Area A. Safe passage between West Bank and Gaza. Most importantly, start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999.

All later agreements had the purpose to implement the former three key agreements


Oslo Accords - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

While it is a legitimate discussion on the wisdom and the practical merit on the current 1000 acre proposal, the legitimacy is govern by something entirely different.

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times before, Area "C" appropriations are covered under the Oslo Accords. Any dispute you have with the Oslo Accord are to be handled through the dispute resolution process which the Palestinians have yet to engage.

Is it "illegal?" You have to look at what the Palestinians agreed to in the Oslo Accords, in comparison to the proposal.

Most Respectfully,
R

Didn't Oslo expire without any of the proposals finalized into a signed agreement?

NOPE as the P.A. tried to use it not that long ago when they threatened to liquidate Palestine and go back to pre 1988.

 

[Phoenall]

The complete set of the "People of Palestine" consists of the two major subsets (culturally: Jewish and Arab). Each with equal rights and each holding the same right of self-determination; meaning the right itself is not exclusive to either one of the subsets. Each attempted to exercise their determination relative to governance.

Are you saying that ISIS has the same right to self determination in Iraq as the Iraqi natives?

Please explain where you get that opinion.

He never said that did he, but if any members of IS are Iraqi then they have the same rights as any other Iraqi citizen, including their right to self determination. If that self determination is to be a murdering terrorist then that is their right.

As I said you do not understand what is meant by the right to self determination

 

[Phoenall]

In the case of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied), of course the LoN did not claim ownership (right of possession). Ownership is a real estate term.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.

http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

Then what does "transfer of territory" mean if not to change ownership?

You can transfer territory without giving up ownership, this happens when you make a gift of something or even allow another person access to your land. As in allowing a trailer to be parked in a field is transfer of territory without giving up ownership.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, et al,

I think you have confused your terminology and timeline.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

(COMMENT)

Who "owns" the land is a civil real estate issue; with nothing to do with sovereignty.

In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the West Bank and engaged Jordanian Forces on Jordanian territory (annexed in 1951). Israeli Forces routed the Jordanian Forces and Occupied the West Bank. In 1988, Jordan severed all ties and governance over the West Bank. In 1993, by means of Article 3 of the Israel-Jordanian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.

In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the Gaza Strip which was occupied by Egyptian Forces. The Egyptian Forces were routed and Israeli Forces assumed the occupation. In 1979, by means of Article II of the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Most Respectfully,
R

"In 1967, in a preemptive strike "

Like Pearl Harbor.

No as Pearl Harbour was a declaration of war, the US had not stated its intentions to attack Japan

 

[montelatici]

Notice how the unsupported BS from Phoney compares to my carefully annotated response:

Firstly. there were was no "Arab Muslim" organization. The organization that represented the Palestinians was made up of regional Muslim-Christian Organizations, that met periodically in a Palestine Arab Congress. These groups would select members of the Palestine Arab Delegations that would meet in London with the Mandatory as did the Zionist Organization, the other party in the political conflict.

Palestine Arab Congress - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Attacks on the Palestinians by the Zionists began well before the Mandate. As described by an early Zionist, Achad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg)

"The behaviour of settlers disturbed him. They had not learned from experience as a minority, but, like a slave who has become king, "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution".

David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian

The Zionists bullies continued this behavior towards the local people through the years of the Mandate and occasionally the local people rightfully reacted.

When the Palestine Arab Delegations would ask the British to stop the Zionist immigration to prevent the establishment (takeover) of their lands the British would respond telling the Christians and Muslims that they had nothing to worry about, that the Jews would work to help develop Palestine to the benefit of all its inhabitants. In fact, what the Christians and Muslims feared happened, the British were unable to or did not want to stop it and that is why we are in the situation we are in:

"6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.

7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a question relative to the transfer of governmental responsibilities over the territory; not necessarily ownership.

In the case of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied), of course the LoN did not claim ownership (right of possession). Ownership is a real estate term.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.

http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

Then what does "transfer of territory" mean if not to change ownership?

(EXAMPLE)

The original United States was the transfer of sovereignty from Great Britain to the US of the original 13 Colonies. But the federal government, in that transfer, did not own any of the territory; except for the British Forts and Ports which were captured. Today, the US consist of incorporated and unincorporated (organized and unorganized) territories. It has gone through a territorial evolution, much like the other major powers of the world. But other than the federal property, different from sovereignty, the US (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa) owns very little of the territory for which it is responsible.

There are unusual conditions that allow for retroactive application of governmental recognition.

• Little Known Fact:

March 1, 1803 is the date that the Ohio General Assembly met for the first time. Supporters of this date contend that, lacking any formal legislation admitting Ohio (formerly part of the Northwest Territory) to the Union, Ohio officially became a state when its government went into operation. That date was endorsed by Congress in 1953 when it enacted legislation introduced by Congressman George Bender from Chagrin Falls. The Bender Act retroactively admitted Ohio to the Union as the 17th state effective March 1, 1803. That date was subsequently adopted by the state's Sesquicentennial commission in 1953, and effective May 31, 1988, the Ohio General Assembly passed legislation designating March 1, 1803 as "Ohio statehood day." (SOURCE: Ohio's controversial Statehood Date)​

There are, within the overall Sovereign Territory of the US areas that have, "Tribal sovereignty in the United States;" the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. These are known as "domestic dependent nations." "When the United States assumed the role of protector of the tribes, it neither denied nor destroyed their sovereignty."

I use these examples to demonstrate that the "transfer of territory" does not impact ownership. The deed to property (ownership) did not change hands or was altered when States like Ohio, or the lands that constituted any of the former American Territories (Alaska, Florida,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Southwest, etc) changed in sovereignty or governance.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Turkish Agreement; the salient points were: (See Item #16)

1. The opening of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus and access to the Black Sea. Allied occupation of the Dardanelles and Bosporus forts.

2. The positions of all mine fields, torpedo tubes and other obstructions in Turkish waters are to be indicated, and assistance given to sweep or remove them, as may be required.

3. All available information concerning mines in the Black Sea is to be communicated.

4. All Allied prisoners of war and Armenian interned persons and prisoners are to be collected in Constantinople and handed over unconditionally to the Allies.

5. Immediate demobilization of the Turkish army, except such troops as are required for surveillance on the frontiers and for the maintenance of internal order.

The number of effectives and their disposition to be determined later by the Allies after consultation with the Turkish Government.

6. The surrender of all war vessels in Turkish waters or waters occupied by Turkey. These ships will be interned in such Turkish port or ports as may be directed, except such small vessels as are required for police and similar purposes in Turkish territorial waters.

7. The Allies to have the right to occupy any strategic points in the event of any situation arising which threatens the security of the Allies.

8. Use by Allied ships of all ports and anchorages now in Turkish occupation and denial of their use by the enemy. Similar conditions are to apply to Turkish mercantile shipping in Turkish waters for the purposes of trade and the demobilization of the army.

9. Allied occupation of the Taurus Tunnel system in Asia Minor.

10. Immediate withdrawal of Turkish troops from Northern Persia to behind the pre-war frontier already has been ordered and will be carried out.

11. A part of Transcaucasia already has been ordered to be evacuated by Turkish troops. The remainder to be evacuated, if required by the Allies, after they have studied the situation.

I2. Wireless, telegraph and cable stations to be con-trolled by the Allies. Turkish Government messages to be excepted.

13. Prohibition against the destruction of any naval, military or commercial material.

14. FaciIities are to be given for the purchase of coal, oil, fuel and naval material from Turkish sources, after the requirements of the country have been met. None of the above materials are to be exported.

15. The surrender of all Turkish offices in Tripolitania and Cyrenaiea to the nearest Italian garrison. Turkey agrees to stop supplies and communication with these officers if they do not obey the order to surrender.

16. The surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander, and withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 6.

17. The use of all ships and repair facilities at all Turkish ports and arsenals.

18. The surrender of all ports occupied in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, including Mizurata, to the nearest Allied garrison.

19. All Germans and Austrians, naval, military or civilian, to be evacuated within one month from Turkish dominions, and those in remote districts as soon after that time as may be possible.

20. Compliance with such orders as may be conveyed for the disposal of equipment, arms and ammunition, including the transport of that portion of the Turkish army which is demobilized under Clause 5.

21. An Allied representative to be attached to the Turkish Ministry of Supplies in order to safeguard Al-lied interests. This representative to be furnished with all aid necessary for this purpose.

22. Turkish prisoners are to be kept at the disposal of the Allied Powers. The release of Turkish civilian prisoners and prisoners over military age is to be considered.

23. An obligation on the part of Turkey to cease all relations with the Central Powers.

24. In case of disorder in the six Armenian vilayets the Allies reserve to themselves the right to occupy any part of them.

25. Hostilities between the Allies and Turkey shall cease from noon, local time, Thursday, the 31st of October, 1918.​

Date: Wednesday, 30 Oct 1918
The Armistice of Mudros (30 October 1918), which ended the hostilities on Middle Eastern theatre of World War I between Ottoman Empire and Allies, was signed by represented by the Minister of Marine Affairs Rauf Bey) and the British Admiral Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe), on the aboard HMS Agamemnon in Moudros port on the island of Lemnos.

The Ottomans had to renounce all of their empire, with the exception of Anatolia and giving up to all their garrisons in Hedjaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. The allies occupied the area around the straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, Batum and the tunnels of the Taurus Mountains and had the right to occupy six provinces with Armenian populations in north-eastern Anatolia in case of disorder, as well as any strategic point which mattered to the security of the Allies.

In the Caucasus, Turkey had to retreat to within its pre-war borders. The Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which included clauses aimed at the creation of an independent Kurdistan and a wider Armenia, would have further diminished the territories controlled by the Turks, but the treaty was not enacted due to the Turkish War of Independence led by Mustafa Kemal Pasha.

SOURCE: Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database)

The combination of the "Unconditional Surrender" and the renouncements of "all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction" to the Allied Powers, effected the transfer of authority and jurisdiction over the territories (not ownership).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

So which state transferred territory to the arab muslims in Palestine, and were is the title deed or treaty signed by all parties accepting the territory. Don't try your usual treaties that don't mention Palestine by name other than in the context of "the British mandate of Palestine hereinafter called Palestine "

If transferred, it would have been transferred to the Palestine Arab Delegation made up of Christians and Muslims, which were the contracting party vis-a-vis the Mandatory. The other party being the Zionist Organization as per below:

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

Try again child as you are referencing letters written between the mandatory powers and interested parties, these are not legal documents and as such are not binding. In other words they are meaningless and have no standing in International law

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is a failure to understand what is means to say: "civil and religious rights."

the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

(QUESTION)

What "civil and religious" rights were violated?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Phoenall, et al,

I think you have confused your terminology and timeline.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

(COMMENT)

Who "owns" the land is a civil real estate issue; with nothing to do with sovereignty.

In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the West Bank and engaged Jordanian Forces on Jordanian territory (annexed in 1951). Israeli Forces routed the Jordanian Forces and Occupied the West Bank. In 1988, Jordan severed all ties and governance over the West Bank. In 1993, by means of Article 3 of the Israel-Jordanian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.

In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the Gaza Strip which was occupied by Egyptian Forces. The Egyptian Forces were routed and Israeli Forces assumed the occupation. In 1979, by means of Article II of the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Most Respectfully,
R

"In 1967, in a preemptive strike "

Like Pearl Harbor.

No as Pearl Harbour was a declaration of war, the US had not stated its intentions to attack Japan

The U.S. implemented an oil embargo on Japan/Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (access to Aqaba) both moves were interpreted as acts of war. Japan strikes pre-emptively/Israel strikes pre-emptively.

 

[montelatici]

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

So which state transferred territory to the arab muslims in Palestine, and were is the title deed or treaty signed by all parties accepting the territory. Don't try your usual treaties that don't mention Palestine by name other than in the context of "the British mandate of Palestine hereinafter called Palestine "

If transferred, it would have been transferred to the Palestine Arab Delegation made up of Christians and Muslims, which were the contracting party vis-a-vis the Mandatory. The other party being the Zionist Organization as per below:

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

Try again child as you are referencing letters written between the mandatory powers and interested parties, these are not legal documents and as such are not binding. In other words they are meaningless and have no standing in International law

Of course they are legal documents you moron.

 

[Phoenall]

Notice how the unsupported BS from Phoney compares to my carefully annotated response:

Firstly. there were was no "Arab Muslim" organization. The organization that represented the Palestinians was made up of regional Muslim-Christian Organizations, that met periodically in a Palestine Arab Congress. These groups would select members of the Palestine Arab Delegations that would meet in London with the Mandatory as did the Zionist Organization, the other party in the political conflict.

Palestine Arab Congress - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Attacks on the Palestinians by the Zionists began well before the Mandate. As described by an early Zionist, Achad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg)

"The behaviour of settlers disturbed him. They had not learned from experience as a minority, but, like a slave who has become king, "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution".

David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian

The Zionists bullies continued this behavior towards the local people through the years of the Mandate and occasionally the local people rightfully reacted.

When the Palestine Arab Delegations would ask the British to stop the Zionist immigration to prevent the establishment (takeover) of their lands the British would respond telling the Christians and Muslims that they had nothing to worry about, that the Jews would work to help develop Palestine to the benefit of all its inhabitants. In fact, what the Christians and Muslims feared happened, the British were unable to or did not want to stop it and that is why we are in the situation we are in:

"6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.

7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

1) what about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron

2) What about the Pact of Omar and the Dhimmi Laws

3) what do letters ( that is what correspondence means child ) have to do with factual data and International law

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

This is a failure to understand what is means to say: "civil and religious rights."

the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

(QUESTION)

What rights were violated?

Most Respectfully,
R

Obviously those of the Christians and Muslims. Being killed and having one's home/land stolen is a violation of civil rights you nutcase.

 

[montelatici]

Notice how the unsupported BS from Phoney compares to my carefully annotated response:

Firstly. there were was no "Arab Muslim" organization. The organization that represented the Palestinians was made up of regional Muslim-Christian Organizations, that met periodically in a Palestine Arab Congress. These groups would select members of the Palestine Arab Delegations that would meet in London with the Mandatory as did the Zionist Organization, the other party in the political conflict.

Palestine Arab Congress - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Attacks on the Palestinians by the Zionists began well before the Mandate. As described by an early Zionist, Achad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg)

"The behaviour of settlers disturbed him. They had not learned from experience as a minority, but, like a slave who has become king, "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution".

David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian

The Zionists bullies continued this behavior towards the local people through the years of the Mandate and occasionally the local people rightfully reacted.

When the Palestine Arab Delegations would ask the British to stop the Zionist immigration to prevent the establishment (takeover) of their lands the British would respond telling the Christians and Muslims that they had nothing to worry about, that the Jews would work to help develop Palestine to the benefit of all its inhabitants. In fact, what the Christians and Muslims feared happened, the British were unable to or did not want to stop it and that is why we are in the situation we are in:

"6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.

7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

1) what about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron

2) What about the Pact of Omar and the Dhimmi Laws

3) what do letters ( that is what correspondence means child ) have to do with factual data and International law

1. Many more Christians and Muslims were massacred by Jews up to the Hebron events, starting in the late 1800s. You can't go on killing people without a violent response.

2. What about the Pact of Umar? What does it have to do with Palestine?

3. The letters are factual and available from the UN archives to which I link to, and are far more reliable than the bullshit you make up that has no back up whatsoever you clown.