Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression​

The Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. This was not an aggression against Palestine.

How did that contravene the UN Charter?

Because it was not arab league land, and it was the palestinians that they were going to wipe out. Remember the claims of 1947 when the arab league stated that the Jews would be wiped out and the land returned to islam. That is what you ignore as it shows your stance to be false. And the Jews were the palestinians or are you denying them their rights again ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:​

What is their definition of settler colonialism?

Link?

Yes how about one from you to support your claim ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."​

Indeed they failed. What were they supposed to do?

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

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations​

Who were these "peoples?" They were defined by article 30 of 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​

In the case of Palestine that would be the Palestinians. They had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as affirmed in subsequent UN resolutions.

And in 1923 when that was written the palestinians were the Jews that lived in the area. The arab muslims were called Syrians or Egyptians with a few being Saudi's. Which is why the legal documents use the term instead of Jew or Arab muslim because that was the common usage of that time.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no such thing (in formal language) as "settler colonialism." You have the link. Look for it yourself. A settler that sets up a colony is not necessarily under a colonial influence. They are mutually exclusive.

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:​

What is their definition of settler colonialism?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Please find that phase? Please find that discussion. There combination of the two words do not change the fact that the UN does not make the same judgement as you. I cannot give you a link to an informal combination of words.

Not true. Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented. There was no resolution 181 to defy.

(COMMENT)

Relative to A/RES/181(II), please re-read the Posting above and Posting 151. You always want to ignore the matters of record and manipulate the facts (UNPC Documentation).

It is also important to understand and recognize that the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (1988) makes use of A/RES/181 (II), including the UN Acknowledgement of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 --- A/RES/43/177; and as late as 4 December 2012 relative to the Status of Palestine in the United Nations A/RES/67/19 also makes reference to the Resolution 181 (II). That is a lost of recalling for some that you claim does not exist.

Most Respectfully,
R

Please find that phase? Please find that discussion.​

Though often conflated with colonialism more generally, settler colonialism is a distinct imperial formation. Both colonialism and settler colonialism are premised on exogenous domination, but only setter colonialism seeks to replace the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers (usually from the colonial metropole). This new society needs land, and so settler colonialism depends primarily on access to territory. This is achieved by various means, either through treaties with indigenous inhabitants or simply by “taking possession.” Britain, for example, implemented the doctrine of “terra nullius” (“land belonging to no one”) to claim sovereignty over Australia. The entire continent was thereby declared legally uninhabited, despite millennia of Aboriginal occupation.

As this work emphasizes, settler colonialism is premised on occupation and the elimination of the native population, while colonialism is primarily about conquest. In the oft-cited words of one influential scholar, settler colonialism is a structure rather than an event (see Wolfe 1999, cited under General Overview). In this sense, settler colonialism does not really ever “end.”

Settler Colonialism - Anthropology - Oxford Bibliographies

Did you read your link and see that it says the examples of settler colonialism just so happen to be America and Australia. Now I expect you will ignore this as it points to you being what you hate the most.

from your link . . . . .

"The entire continent was thereby declared legally uninhabited, despite millennia of Aboriginal occupation. In the late 1980s, during the heyday of postcolonial theory, some scholars started to criticize widespread, generalized use of the term “postcolonial”—a word they considered problematic. They argued that in a settler society like Australia or the United States, colonialism could not be described or theorized in the past tense—there was no “postcolonial.” In these places, the state maintained a colonial relationship with the indigenous peoples (and was complicit in their ongoing dispossession). Following these initial critiques, scholars in anthropology and related disciplines (particularly Indigenous studies) set about analytically disentangling settler colonialism from colonialism while developing new, dedicated theoretical frameworks for settler colonial studies"


You cant have that many toes left the number of times you have shot yourself in the foot. This link like most of yours fails to mention palestine at any time

 

[xband]

As has been the norm for a decade, the Oslo Accords-created Palestinian Authority has "postponed" the October elections. Unsure of the vote's outcome, Abbas's "Supreme Court" ordered the delay while they consider 2 election related issues.

While this is not an unusual move in places where the rule of law plays second fiddle to the ruling regime's whim, it illustrates the failure of Palestinians to establish an electoral democracy and a genuinely functional state.

The ascension of Hamas prompted the PA's Fatah ruling party to tighten their grip on their share of power which is most of the West Bank, creating 2 separate and competing national gov'ts.

While Fatah's intention - the exclusion of a known terrorist gang from governance - may have been pragmatic, the result has been to engender oppression. Fatah correctly sees cooperation with Israel and the international community as the path to an independent state. Hamas sees the destruction of Israel as the only solution.

As things now stand the PA must either to form a single gov't with the rule of law and peaceful coexistence as its goals or to continue with Gaza and the WB as separate entities and perhaps create a WB Palestinian State sans Gaza.

The choice is, as always, theirs.

Next month’s Palestinian local elections aren’t happening. Here’s why. [excerpted]

...The Palestinian Authority is an electoral democracy in name, but the governments that rule in the West Bank and Gaza are effectively one-party regimes. Following Hamas’s victory in 2006, violent clashes resulted in the Islamist movement seizing control of the Gaza Strip and taking over PA institutions there, including the Interior Ministry, public police and security forces. Fatah, for its part, purged much of the central PA authority structures in the West Bank of Hamas supporters. Today, these two islands of Palestinian rule persist — each under the seemingly firm grip of a single party.

Yet beneath the surface of these coercive states, sporadic episodes of relative self-rule at the local level in the West Bank and Gaza have made local elections a historically important harbinger of political sentiment. In a setting where it is unclear how the population’s interests are being represented at the national level, subnational elections are a valuable mechanism for opposition movements to form popular bases and demonstrate competence in governance. Local elections, just as they did for a brief time when Israel directly ruled the territories, have served as an important, if not entirely even, counterweight to autocratic authority. Perhaps more important, they have often served as the bellwether of fundamental shifts in the Palestinian resistance movement.

Past behavior predicts future behavior, Dr. Phil.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression​

The Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. This was not an aggression against Palestine.

How did that contravene the UN Charter?

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. This was not an aggression against Palestine."

Indeed, that is what you were taught at your madrassah, but you shouldn't expect thinking humans to accept that nonsense as true.

 

[Hollie]

Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

Who said that governance has to be about timely elections, the rule of law, and political parties whose members aren't masked killers who carry a loaded Kalashnikov everywhere they go? Welcome to governance in the islamist Middle East—Pal'istanian Arab style.

Elections to be held... eh, whenever. Ultra violent gangs of armed Islamic terrorists allowed to freely roam the streets, and demand a say in governance. Threats of getting back to the daily routine of mass Israeli murder. Now that is a shining example of islamo-governance in action.

I've really got to say, if there was ever a people who deserved to be given their own sovereign state, it's Pal'istanian Arabs.



Local Palestinian elections 'referendum on Abbas rule'
The Palestinian Authority is buying time to avoid an electoral defeat, analysts say.

Local Palestinian elections 'referendum on Abbas rule'

The fate of local elections in the occupied Palestinian territories remains unclear as Palestinian officials in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continue to trade blame for the ongoing political impasse.

On Tuesday, the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs the Israeli-occupied West Bank, announced that it would postpone the municipal elections for up to four months.

 

[member]

Excellent question.

The last legally constituted government in Palestine was the unity government of March 2007.

What happened to that?

​

​

"The last legally constituted government in Palestine was the unity government of March 2007."


"What happened to that" ?

​

Nothing.

​

​

​

​

.....same "unity governent."

it kills you doesn't it ? "Government."


Get outta here.....

​