Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

OK, let's ask the interrogatives.

Rocco et al.

Not at all.

The people (Arabs 95% of the population in the case of Palestine at the time) in territories were accorded provisional sovereignty as of the date of the Mandate(s) given that the main purpose of the Mandate(s) was:

"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"

Tutelage by the Mandatory, as stated in the Covenant, is not sovereignty.

ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

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

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

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

And the disclaimer at the end sums it up

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development


The arab Palestinians have still not reached that stage of development as shown by their inability to form a state.[/QUOTE]

No, all the Ottoman possessions were subject to Class A Mandates, including Palestine. The other states that did not get classified with Class A status were identified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 22.
[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

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

"Certain communities" --- it did not just say "communities" and it did not say "all communities." It said certain communities.
When did the Arab Palestinians ever demonstrate that they "able to stand alone." They could not even help in the maintenance of peace and security , or assist on development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States. For crying out loud, the Fedayeen tried to assassinate the King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (not just once - but twice).

The same people that wrote the Article 22 of the Covenant --- also agreed on the San Remo where it was decided to establish a Jewish National Home. But that was too much for the Arabs. They wanted as much as they could take by force.

No, the world --- not even the other Arab Counties, owes the Arab Palestinian anything. With every one around them against the Jewish People, surrounded and outnumbered, the Jews made the most stable and productive country in the reason. No one needs to hand the Palestinians a country. When they become mature enough, like the Jew people, they will come togather and build a nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[danielpalos]

Should we enjoin them to "harass a Judge" instead?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

OK, let's ask the interrogatives.

Rocco et al.

Not at all.

The people (Arabs 95% of the population in the case of Palestine at the time) in territories were accorded provisional sovereignty as of the date of the Mandate(s) given that the main purpose of the Mandate(s) was:

"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"

Tutelage by the Mandatory, as stated in the Covenant, is not sovereignty.

ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

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

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

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

And the disclaimer at the end sums it up

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development


The arab Palestinians have still not reached that stage of development as shown by their inability to form a state.

No, all the Ottoman possessions were subject to Class A Mandates, including Palestine. The other states that did not get classified with Class A status were identified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 22.
[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

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

"Certain communities" --- it did not just say "communities" and it did not say "all communities." It said certain communities.
When did the Arab Palestinians ever demonstrate that they "able to stand alone." They could not even help in the maintenance of peace and security , or assist on development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States. For crying out loud, the Fedayeen tried to assassinate the King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (not just once - but twice).

The same people that wrote the Article 22 of the Covenant --- also agreed on the San Remo where it was decided to establish a Jewish National Home. But that was too much for the Arabs. They wanted as much as they could take by force.

No, the world --- not even the other Arab Counties, owes the Arab Palestinian anything. With every one around them against the Jewish People, surrounded and outnumbered, the Jews made the most stable and productive country in the reason. No one needs to hand the Palestinians a country. When they become mature enough, like the Jew people, they will come togather and build a nation.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


There is no question that Palestine was one of the Class A Mandates.

"the Class A mandates were moved into independence. Most of these were in the former Ottoman Empire, such as Trans-Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. Wilson's charge to the peace conference in the plenary session of 14 February 1919 was only partially observed; but his expectations on mandates were more fulfilled than in most other areas of the Fourteen Points. Wilson told the conference members that they were "done with annexation of helpless peoples," and henceforth nations would consider it their responsibility to protect and promote the interests of people under their tutelage before their own interests. It would remain for the United Nations, not the League of Nations, to carry out this promise."

Read more: League of nations mandates - Mandates and Trusteeships

"Too much for the Arabs"? It would be too much for any people to accept European colonization without resisting. Do you believe that the Christians and Muslims having lived in Palestine for thousands of years should have just accepted the settlement of Europeans in Palestine?

 

[Roudy]

This disturbing video shows Israeli youths, escorted by police and occupation forces, marching through the Old City of Jerusalem chanting “mavet la’aravim” – “death to the Arabs”
According to the racism-monitoring website Kifaya, the 19 April march was part of the monthly “Tour of the Gates” by Jewish extremists through the Muslim Quarter of the Old City.

As part of the event, held at the beginning of every month according to the Jewish calendar, the one-kilometer-long route is blocked to Palestinians, and businesses and stores must close, Kifaya says.

Palestinians are forbidden from leaving their homes during the march.

“Some 1,500 Jews participated in the march,” Kifaya says, “and it was secured by hundreds of policemen and soldiers, who thronged the area.”

Posting a clip from a clip from an Islamist site called "Kifaya" doesn't really cut it. Besides, Israelis have free speech and Arab Muslims never did and never will.

Reedemoun.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still avoiding the content, I see.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still avoiding the content, I see.

I completely understand the content. It is the exact same content the Arab Palestinian and Arab Hight Committee have always used.

It does not change the reality.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 is not an authority. Maybe not --- but since all peoples have the right of self-determination. If nothing else, the General Assembly, through the adoption of Resolution 181, lent its support. But the Resolution is quite clear. It does not require both the concur.​

Part I --- Chapter 4 --- Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The fact that the "It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties." Does not effective bar the General Assembly from adopting the recommendation OR the Jewish Agency form accepting the offer OR the UNPC from assisting in the implementation of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Yes "like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties" Yes, it is one of the 8 elements of the contract. But the contract is not between the Jewish People and the Arab People --- the contract offer is between the UN General Assembly (the offeror) and the "either" the Arab or the Jewish or both individually.​

The "Palestine NEVER HAD THE AUTHORITY to conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership," It was the League of Nations that stipulated that: "

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;"

​

The suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. This is totally irrelevant. The UN Security Council did not force the Arabs to accept the 181 Offer --- and the UN Security Council did not force the Jewish to accept the offer.

The idea that the Plan was never implemented is totally false. It is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD and took the form of a Press Release from the UN Palestine Commission in PAL/169 17 MAY 1948 : EXCERPT: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

Where is this written: "he Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case." I see the exact opposite. I see that "All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council (Article 25 of the charter). While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the Charter.
​

I did not see much that I didn't expect.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still avoiding the content, I see.

I completely understand the content. It is the exact same content the Arab Palestinian and Arab Hight Committee have always used.

It does not change the reality.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 is not an authority. Maybe not --- but since all peoples have the right of self-determination. If nothing else, the General Assembly, through the adoption of Resolution 181, lent its support. But the Resolution is quite clear. It does not require both the concur.​

Part I --- Chapter 4 --- Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The fact that the "It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties." Does not effective bar the General Assembly from adopting the recommendation OR the Jewish Agency form accepting the offer OR the UNPC from assisting in the implementation of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Yes "like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties" Yes, it is one of the 8 elements of the contract. But the contract is not between the Jewish People and the Arab People --- the contract offer is between the UN General Assembly (the offeror) and the "either" the Arab or the Jewish or both individually.​

The "Palestine NEVER HAD THE AUTHORITY to conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership," It was the League of Nations that stipulated that: "

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;"

​

The suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. This is totally irrelevant. The UN Security Council did not force the Arabs to accept the 181 Offer --- and the UN Security Council did not force the Jewish to accept the offer.

The idea that the Plan was never implemented is totally false. It is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD and took the form of a Press Release from the UN Palestine Commission in PAL/169 17 MAY 1948 : EXCERPT: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

Where is this written: "he Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case." I see the exact opposite. I see that "All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council (Article 25 of the charter). While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the Charter.
​

I did not see much that I didn't expect.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[Roudy]

Hp

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jaysus, you mean Tinmore brainless used a false propaganda site? Who woulda thunk?!

 

[Roudy]

Hp

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jaysus, you mean Tinmore brainless used a false propaganda site? Who woulda thunk?!

 

[Roudy]

Hp

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jaysus, you mean Tinmore used a false propaganda site? Who woulda thunk?!

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinian was

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc. The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22. How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assi

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinian was

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc. The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22. How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assigned to the Europeans represented 55% of Palestine while the Europeans represented less than a third of the population of Palestine. I think you get the point.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinian was

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco et al,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc. The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22. How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assigned to the Europeans represented 55% of Palestine while the Europeans represented less than a third of the population of Palestine. I think you get the point.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

There are many people who claim this and that about Article 22.

Rocco,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc. The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22. How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assi

(COMMENT)

First, what does Article 22 have to say (exactly)?

ARTICLE 22. LoN Covenant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine is not mentioned in Article 22, except for the fact that it might, or it might not, be one of the "certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire. One might ask, does any clause within Article 22 specifically applied unambiguously to Palestine at all? I don't think so. Nothing in Article 22 promises anything specific to any particular Mandate, territory or people. Nothing at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is just a discussion paper. I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians. For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf

(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 (which wrote A/AC.14.32), 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .

View attachment 40132
​

What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R

I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​

My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Always consider the source. (False appeal to authority. GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)

Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​

(COMMENT)

Sub-point: The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2 with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

• Afghanistan: Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
• Colombia: A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called la violencia, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
• Egypt: There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations. The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
• Iraq: The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state. It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
• Lebanon: Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government. Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
• Pakistan: Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
• Saudi Arabia: The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
• Syria: In total chaos. May not survive with any reasonable stability.
• Yemen: In total chaos - failed state. Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them. (Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.) They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents. For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion. The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development. The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still avoiding the content, I see.

I completely understand the content. It is the exact same content the Arab Palestinian and Arab Hight Committee have always used.

It does not change the reality.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 is not an authority. Maybe not --- but since all peoples have the right of self-determination. If nothing else, the General Assembly, through the adoption of Resolution 181, lent its support. But the Resolution is quite clear. It does not require both the concur.​

Part I --- Chapter 4 --- Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The fact that the "It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties." Does not effective bar the General Assembly from adopting the recommendation OR the Jewish Agency form accepting the offer OR the UNPC from assisting in the implementation of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Yes "like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties" Yes, it is one of the 8 elements of the contract. But the contract is not between the Jewish People and the Arab People --- the contract offer is between the UN General Assembly (the offeror) and the "either" the Arab or the Jewish or both individually.​

The "Palestine NEVER HAD THE AUTHORITY to conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership," It was the League of Nations that stipulated that: "

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;"

​

The suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. This is totally irrelevant. The UN Security Council did not force the Arabs to accept the 181 Offer --- and the UN Security Council did not force the Jewish to accept the offer.

The idea that the Plan was never implemented is totally false. It is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD and took the form of a Press Release from the UN Palestine Commission in PAL/169 17 MAY 1948 : EXCERPT: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

Where is this written: "he Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case." I see the exact opposite. I see that "All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council (Article 25 of the charter). While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the Charter.​

I did not see much that I didn't expect.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

OK, but:

The Sub-Committee stated that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine” and that “the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine ...” The Sub-Committee, in its report to the Ad Hoc Committee, further stated that “partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine. The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
-----------------------
United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 denied the most fundamental national right to the Palestinian people – by providing for the partition of Palestine into two states on the basis of vague ethnic assumptions and discriminatory policies along the lines of the legally invalid “Balfour Declaration” and its incorporation into the League of Nations’ Mandate. The Palestinians had never been consulted in this process; new political structures had de facto been imposed on them. In strictly legal terms, the General Assembly had no authority to divest the Palestinians of their sovereignty over the areas of Palestine which it allocated to the Jewish state.

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict​

Palestinian sovereignty is mentioned here and affirmed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Your posts are based on the false premise that the Palestinians do not have sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

There are many people who claim this and that about Article 22.

Rocco,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc. The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22. How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assi

(COMMENT)

First, what does Article 22 have to say (exactly)?

ARTICLE 22. LoN Covenant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine is not mentioned in Article 22, except for the fact that it might, or it might not, be one of the "certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire. One might ask, does any clause within Article 22 specifically applied unambiguously to Palestine at all? I don't think so. Nothing in Article 22 promises anything specific to any particular Mandate, territory or people. Nothing at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

“The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict​

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

There are many people who claim this and that about Article 22.

Rocco,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc. The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22. How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assi

(COMMENT)

First, what does Article 22 have to say (exactly)?

ARTICLE 22. LoN Covenant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine is not mentioned in Article 22, except for the fact that it might, or it might not, be one of the "certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire. One might ask, does any clause within Article 22 specifically applied unambiguously to Palestine at all? I don't think so. Nothing in Article 22 promises anything specific to any particular Mandate, territory or people. Nothing at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestine Mandate was one of the Class A Mandates. That's just a fact.