Finally.........A Palestinian Contribution To Mankind

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I saw that. It is a problem using Wikipedia as the source source on a legal interpretation of intent. This is a continuation of the diversion.

Settler colonialism
is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

The land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course this is what we have witnessed during the so called mandate period and continues through today with the colonial expansion in the West Bank. Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.

(COMMENT)

The Lost Colony of Roanoke, as an example, was a colonial expedition, under the authority of the British Sovereign, to extend sovereignty under the rule of "Discovery." It is a form of "Occupation."

Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.[17]
​

The entire body of the League of Nations (The Council) understood that there was no "Colonial" intent in the establishment of Mandate control. There was a direct intent, plainly understood, that the Allied Powers would be instrumental in the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and that the Allied Powers would facilitate immigration in favor of that decision; with the JNH to be a carve-out from holdings under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration; --- from which the Allied Powers were successors to all Titles and Rights.

The constant attempt by the belligerent and Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) --- for the last century --- to undermine that intention and convince people otherwise, is merely an attempt to secure territory by force for which the occupied enemy inhabitants were refused to participate in the Article 22 Tutelage or to accomplish those set preparatory to independence in the same fashion as the Jewish Community and the Jordanian Community.

Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.

(COMMENT)

I don't want to give a lecture on the displacement of Colonialism; but let's just say that when the UN Charter was written, colonialism was on its last leg. Again, none of this is important to the resolution of the dispute between the failing State of Palestine (the Arab State in A/RES/181) and the thriving State of Israel (the Jewish State in A/RES/181).

There is NO --- repeat "NO" --- territory for which the UN Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) applies. For all that has been written on this very issue, the HoAP constantly argue this ridiculous position that a Colonial Power introduced the immigration to expand colonial power. This was 100% wrong. While the British maintained a colonial power at that time, the intent had been to establish the JNH. In these contemporary times, there are no "Non-Self-Governing Territories" anywhere in the Middle East, including Palestine.

As for expanding into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, --- at the time the Israeli occupied these areas, NEITHER were under the sovereignty or control of the Palestinians. As explained previously (Posting #506 - Lest We Forget) at different times the relationships were different do to the shift in the political situation.

View attachment 84489
​

As for this allegation that: "there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true." This is simply twisting the facts. When the HoAP find it convenient, they cry foul and argue they have this "universal and inalienable rights." But when it is inconvenient, they attempt to twist the facts such that they can argue Israel has no right to self-determination (that would mean that it is not universal and not inalienable). This vassilation between two concepts is a symptom of a politically psychopathic dissociative identity disorder (Palestinians will shift to any position or any identity as long as they can continue the jihad and insurgency).

Remember, Israel never occupied HoAP Territory. The failing State of Palestine materialized inside of "Dependent Territory" on Israel (later shifting to a more "Protectorate" type status), as an unchallenged right to self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Zionists said it was colonization. The British said it was colonization. They both had colonial offices to implement their plan. Historians say it is colonization. The Palestinians, and others, call it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism.

Here is what the UN says:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

And you say it isn't.

THAT IS CORRECT IT ISNT, AND NO MANNER OF TWISTING AND MANIPULATING RESOLUTIONS WILL CHANGE THE TRUTH. WHO HAS DENIED THE ARAB MUSLIMS CALLING THEMSELVES PALESTINIANS FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, NATIONAL UNITY AND SOVERIEGNTY OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. POINT TO ONE ACTION BY ISRAEL THAT HAS BREACHED ANY OF THESE RIGHTS THAT WAS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED AS A MEANS OF DEFENCE AGAINST TERRORISM AND VIOLENCE

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, our friend Shusha has hit the nail on the head.

Here is what the UN says:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

...all peoples under foreign and colonial domination....

...universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence ...

All peoples, Tinmore. Including the Jewish people. Two state solution. So why aren't you arguing for the two state solution along with me and the rest of us?

(COMMENT)

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy. These were often characteristic of the 1982 A/RES/37/43, a Resolution that was overtaken by events. Remember, this Resolution came just 6 months after the brutal midday attack on 9 August 1982 took place in the Marais district, a largely Jewish neighborhood in the centre of Paris.
A French Magistrate issued international arrest warrants for three Palestinians on evidence linking them with carrying out the attack.

In 1982 there was no effort, by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to exercise self-determination and establish a Palestinian State. In 1982, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories formerly under the foreign control of Jordan (Annexed the West Bank in 1950) and Egypt (dissolved the All Palestine Government and placed the Gaza Strip under an Military Governorship in 1959); respectively.

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

(TWO STATE SOLUTION)

The Arab-Palestinians are playing a Three-Card Monte Game on their position on "Borders." Some express the opinion that everything West of the Jordan River, within the former Mandate boundaries is rightfully Palestinian. Some say that no power has the right to establish any kind of Jewish National Home (JNH) anywhere in Arab Lands. Then there are those that suggest that the Palestinians should pay no penalty for their initiation and subsequent loss of the 1948 War for Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack.

The 4 June 1967 border, which the Hostile Arab Palestinians defined as the 1949 Armistice Line (Armistice Agreements with Egypt and Jordan) is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. This is wrong, in that, in connection with the PLO State of Palestine, the Armistice Lines had no relevance. The Armistice Lines had mean only to the parties to the conflict (Israel in conflict with Egypt and Jordan). The Armistice Lines cease to have any meaning on the establishment of the Peace Treaties between the Parties to the Conflict and a new set of International Boundaries were recognized. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

I had to laugh at PLO Secretary General Dr. Saeb Erekat said: “if the members of international community are serious about the two-state solution they must, at the very least, recognize the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders. This will send a clear message to Israel that in the 21st century, borders are determined by international law and not by settlement colonies that are built on land that was acquired by force.” But what is unspoken is that in 1948, it was the Arab League that initiated the act of g when they launched a coordinated attack across their borders and outside their jurisdiction. The rule on the acquisition by force applies to those countries which intimate military action to secure additional territory. It does not apply to a country which is attacked by the Arab League, which losses ground to the defender.

Finally, these "settlements" were established in negotiated and Palestinians Approved Area "C;" full Israeli civil and security control. Nothing prohibits the building of settlements on the basis of an approved negated accord; and not undergone the agreed upon dispute resolution process. And the HoAP have consistently declined to open the dispute resolution process. The HoAP have absolutely no legitimate basis to complain.

Article XV: Resolution of disputes:
Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements:

The Government of the State of Israel and the PLO team
(in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference) (the "Palestinian Delegation"),
representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict,
recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just,
lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process.
​

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an arbitration committee.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.​

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.​

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

 

[yiostheoy]

Hezbollah invented the truck bomb.

McVeigh liked the idea so much that he copycatted them.

1983 Beirut barracks bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think you understand your history.

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

(COMMENT)

Although there are more the 2 dozen citations referenced in 1982 A/RES/37/43 in the opening, there is no direct reference connecting "self-determination" or "territorial integrity" other than the UN Charter [Chapter I Article 1(2) and 2(4)]. And the Charter, while directly applicable to Israel as a Member Nation, has no influence or power relative to Palestine because (in 1982) there was no member nation called Palestine.

The Charter is equally applicable to all nations conceptually. What is good for Israel is good for every other member. There is nothing unique to the Palestinians that would come to be recognized as an observer nation --- six years in the future (1988).

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

(COMMENT)

WOW, !!! Nothing under international law, relative to "territorial integrity" applied to Palestine.

• Article 2(4) of the Charter applies to members. In 1948, it was the Arab League that used force to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel [The Jewish State as recommended by the UN Membership Part II - Boundaries, Section "B", A/RES/181(II)].

• The UN, the successor organization to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 77(1a) - International Trusteeship System, held the Article 16 passage of all TITLE and RIGHTS to the Territory formerly under Mandate. Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System. As you so often remind us, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is as universal as the objective for peace. AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

• Finally, these century old arguments have been overtaken be events. No matter what agency might interpret the intent of the Allied Powers with regards to the future of the area formerly under the supervision of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration [OETA South - (Dec 1917 – Jun 1920)], they cannot be use to upset the general maintenance of peace --- as is the purpose of the UN.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think you understand your history.

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

(COMMENT)

Although there are more the 2 dozen citations referenced in 1982 A/RES/37/43 in the opening, there is no direct reference connecting "self-determination" or "territorial integrity" other than the UN Charter [Chapter I Article 1(2) and 2(4)]. And the Charter, while directly applicable to Israel as a Member Nation, has no influence or power relative to Palestine because (in 1982) there was no member nation called Palestine.

The Charter is equally applicable to all nations conceptually. What is good for Israel is good for every other member. There is nothing unique to the Palestinians that would come to be recognized as an observer nation --- six years in the future (1988).

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

(COMMENT)

WOW, !!! Nothing under international law, relative to "territorial integrity" applied to Palestine.

• Article 2(4) of the Charter applies to members. In 1948, it was the Arab League that used force to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel [The Jewish State as recommended by the UN Membership Part II - Boundaries, Section "B", A/RES/181(II)].

• The UN, the successor organization to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 77(1a) - International Trusteeship System, held the Article 16 passage of all TITLE and RIGHTS to the Territory formerly under Mandate. Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System. As you so often remind us, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is as universal as the objective for peace. AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

• Finally, these century old arguments have been overtaken be events. No matter what agency might interpret the intent of the Allied Powers with regards to the future of the area formerly under the supervision of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration [OETA South - (Dec 1917 – Jun 1920)], they cannot be use to upset the general maintenance of peace --- as is the purpose of the UN.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."​

Where are they wrong?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think you understand your history.

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

(COMMENT)

Although there are more the 2 dozen citations referenced in 1982 A/RES/37/43 in the opening, there is no direct reference connecting "self-determination" or "territorial integrity" other than the UN Charter [Chapter I Article 1(2) and 2(4)]. And the Charter, while directly applicable to Israel as a Member Nation, has no influence or power relative to Palestine because (in 1982) there was no member nation called Palestine.

The Charter is equally applicable to all nations conceptually. What is good for Israel is good for every other member. There is nothing unique to the Palestinians that would come to be recognized as an observer nation --- six years in the future (1988).

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

(COMMENT)

WOW, !!! Nothing under international law, relative to "territorial integrity" applied to Palestine.

• Article 2(4) of the Charter applies to members. In 1948, it was the Arab League that used force to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel [The Jewish State as recommended by the UN Membership Part II - Boundaries, Section "B", A/RES/181(II)].

• The UN, the successor organization to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 77(1a) - International Trusteeship System, held the Article 16 passage of all TITLE and RIGHTS to the Territory formerly under Mandate. Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System. As you so often remind us, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is as universal as the objective for peace. AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

• Finally, these century old arguments have been overtaken be events. No matter what agency might interpret the intent of the Allied Powers with regards to the future of the area formerly under the supervision of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration [OETA South - (Dec 1917 – Jun 1920)], they cannot be use to upset the general maintenance of peace --- as is the purpose of the UN.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System.​

The UN has no authority over land or borders. It cannot create or negate the existence of states. The UN can only recognize states and grant membership. These are both political acts. There is no legal criteria necessary for these actions.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a bit lost here.

AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

Where are they wrong?

(COMMENT)

Crazy people are allowed to believe what they want. If the HoAP do not wish to recognize that which is a matter of history just because they do not like what is says, does not change what is right with the history and with the development of a culture and nation.

The HoAP just make it harder on themselves with a ever increasing detrimental effect on them. If the HoAP do not want to develop, then so be it. But they should not blame anyone but themselves.

Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System.

The UN has no authority over land or borders. It cannot create or negate the existence of states. The UN can only recognize states and grant membership. These are both political acts. There is no legal criteria necessary for these actions.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, the territory came under the jurisdiction of the UN.

Remember, the Treaty of Lausanne gave the Allied Powers the TITLE and RIGHTS to the area formerly supervised by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. The Allied Powers the created through the Council of the League of Nations, the Mandate System. But the TITLE and RIGHTS were still in the hands of the Allied Powers as the Mandatory Nations were selected. The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers. Now, it should be noted that just as the Mandate System (relative the Palestine) ran its course, so it was with the Trusteeship System (relative to Palestine). The inhabitants have exercised their right to self-determination; in the case of the West Bank, several times. So, now --- to talk intelligently --- Israel, and every other the remaining parties to the conflict, must use the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States when trying to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Now, again, the HoAP can claim that they have --- by some feat of magic --- sovereignty and independence over the area formerly supervised by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (later the Mandate for Palestine). But NOWHERE are the HoAP granted or recognized as having any control of territory; except for Gaza Area "A" and "B"... In fact, the Armistice Lines do not even exist relative to the West Bank or Gaza Strip. While the Jewish State of Israel has identifiable and concrete borders which are policed by the State, the Palestinians do not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, our friend Shusha has hit the nail on the head.

Here is what the UN says:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

...all peoples under foreign and colonial domination....

...universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence ...

All peoples, Tinmore. Including the Jewish people. Two state solution. So why aren't you arguing for the two state solution along with me and the rest of us?

(COMMENT)

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy. These were often characteristic of the 1982 A/RES/37/43, a Resolution that was overtaken by events. Remember, this Resolution came just 6 months after the brutal midday attack on 9 August 1982 took place in the Marais district, a largely Jewish neighborhood in the centre of Paris.
A French Magistrate issued international arrest warrants for three Palestinians on evidence linking them with carrying out the attack.

In 1982 there was no effort, by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to exercise self-determination and establish a Palestinian State. In 1982, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories formerly under the foreign control of Jordan (Annexed the West Bank in 1950) and Egypt (dissolved the All Palestine Government and placed the Gaza Strip under an Military Governorship in 1959); respectively.

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

(TWO STATE SOLUTION)

The Arab-Palestinians are playing a Three-Card Monte Game on their position on "Borders." Some express the opinion that everything West of the Jordan River, within the former Mandate boundaries is rightfully Palestinian. Some say that no power has the right to establish any kind of Jewish National Home (JNH) anywhere in Arab Lands. Then there are those that suggest that the Palestinians should pay no penalty for their initiation and subsequent loss of the 1948 War for Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack.

The 4 June 1967 border, which the Hostile Arab Palestinians defined as the 1949 Armistice Line (Armistice Agreements with Egypt and Jordan) is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. This is wrong, in that, in connection with the PLO State of Palestine, the Armistice Lines had no relevance. The Armistice Lines had mean only to the parties to the conflict (Israel in conflict with Egypt and Jordan). The Armistice Lines cease to have any meaning on the establishment of the Peace Treaties between the Parties to the Conflict and a new set of International Boundaries were recognized. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

I had to laugh at PLO Secretary General Dr. Saeb Erekat said: “if the members of international community are serious about the two-state solution they must, at the very least, recognize the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders. This will send a clear message to Israel that in the 21st century, borders are determined by international law and not by settlement colonies that are built on land that was acquired by force.” But what is unspoken is that in 1948, it was the Arab League that initiated the act of g when they launched a coordinated attack across their borders and outside their jurisdiction. The rule on the acquisition by force applies to those countries which intimate military action to secure additional territory. It does not apply to a country which is attacked by the Arab League, which losses ground to the defender.

Finally, these "settlements" were established in negotiated and Palestinians Approved Area "C;" full Israeli civil and security control. Nothing prohibits the building of settlements on the basis of an approved negated accord; and not undergone the agreed upon dispute resolution process. And the HoAP have consistently declined to open the dispute resolution process. The HoAP have absolutely no legitimate basis to complain.

Article XV: Resolution of disputes:
Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements:

The Government of the State of Israel and the PLO team
(in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference) (the "Palestinian Delegation"),
representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict,
recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just,
lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process.
​

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an arbitration committee.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.​

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.​

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

Did you forget about the Oslo Accords then that were treaties giving Israel the legal right to do so. Or the UN resolutions that state acquisitiopn of land by force is illegal so the Jews were entitled to claim back the land stolen from them in 1949 by the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians. What treaty did the arab muslims calling themselves palestiniand have to allow them to invade and take Jewish lands in 1949 ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a bit lost here.

AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

Where are they wrong?

(COMMENT)

Crazy people are allowed to believe what they want. If the HoAP do not wish to recognize that which is a matter of history just because they do not like what is says, does not change what is right with the history and with the development of a culture and nation.

The HoAP just make it harder on themselves with a ever increasing detrimental effect on them. If the HoAP do not want to develop, then so be it. But they should not blame anyone but themselves.

Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System.

The UN has no authority over land or borders. It cannot create or negate the existence of states. The UN can only recognize states and grant membership. These are both political acts. There is no legal criteria necessary for these actions.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, the territory came under the jurisdiction of the UN.

Remember, the Treaty of Lausanne gave the Allied Powers the TITLE and RIGHTS to the area formerly supervised by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. The Allied Powers the created through the Council of the League of Nations, the Mandate System. But the TITLE and RIGHTS were still in the hands of the Allied Powers as the Mandatory Nations were selected. The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers. Now, it should be noted that just as the Mandate System (relative the Palestine) ran its course, so it was with the Trusteeship System (relative to Palestine). The inhabitants have exercised their right to self-determination; in the case of the West Bank, several times. So, now --- to talk intelligently --- Israel, and every other the remaining parties to the conflict, must use the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States when trying to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Now, again, the HoAP can claim that they have --- by some feat of magic --- sovereignty and independence over the area formerly supervised by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (later the Mandate for Palestine). But NOWHERE are the HoAP granted or recognized as having any control of territory; except for Gaza Area "A" and "B"... In fact, the Armistice Lines do not even exist relative to the West Bank or Gaza Strip. While the Jewish State of Israel has identifiable and concrete borders which are policed by the State, the Palestinians do not.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers.​

If the Mandate had title and rights.

And.

The Mandate was to create a Jewish Home.

Why didn't they just sign Palestine over to the Zionists?

Mission accomplished.

 

[Shusha]

Where are they wrong?

They are wrong exactly for the reason YOU keeping bringing up:

...all peoples under foreign and colonial domination....

...universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence ...


The Jewish people too.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think you understand your history.

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

(COMMENT)

Although there are more the 2 dozen citations referenced in 1982 A/RES/37/43 in the opening, there is no direct reference connecting "self-determination" or "territorial integrity" other than the UN Charter [Chapter I Article 1(2) and 2(4)]. And the Charter, while directly applicable to Israel as a Member Nation, has no influence or power relative to Palestine because (in 1982) there was no member nation called Palestine.

The Charter is equally applicable to all nations conceptually. What is good for Israel is good for every other member. There is nothing unique to the Palestinians that would come to be recognized as an observer nation --- six years in the future (1988).

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

(COMMENT)

WOW, !!! Nothing under international law, relative to "territorial integrity" applied to Palestine.

• Article 2(4) of the Charter applies to members. In 1948, it was the Arab League that used force to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel [The Jewish State as recommended by the UN Membership Part II - Boundaries, Section "B", A/RES/181(II)].

• The UN, the successor organization to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 77(1a) - International Trusteeship System, held the Article 16 passage of all TITLE and RIGHTS to the Territory formerly under Mandate. Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System. As you so often remind us, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is as universal as the objective for peace. AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

• Finally, these century old arguments have been overtaken be events. No matter what agency might interpret the intent of the Allied Powers with regards to the future of the area formerly under the supervision of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration [OETA South - (Dec 1917 – Jun 1920)], they cannot be use to upset the general maintenance of peace --- as is the purpose of the UN.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."​

Where are they wrong?

In denying the Jews the same rights they themselves recieve of course. Like you they believe that they are the only group that should be allowed to have any rights to land, free determination and security. They are in breach of international laws that make them all collectively war criminals and as such should be arrested and tried for their crimes in the Hague.

You are very quick to point out that Israel is in breach of international laws that dont exist, yet ignore the arab muslims breaches of international laws that do exist. WHY IS THIS ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think you understand your history.

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

(COMMENT)

Although there are more the 2 dozen citations referenced in 1982 A/RES/37/43 in the opening, there is no direct reference connecting "self-determination" or "territorial integrity" other than the UN Charter [Chapter I Article 1(2) and 2(4)]. And the Charter, while directly applicable to Israel as a Member Nation, has no influence or power relative to Palestine because (in 1982) there was no member nation called Palestine.

The Charter is equally applicable to all nations conceptually. What is good for Israel is good for every other member. There is nothing unique to the Palestinians that would come to be recognized as an observer nation --- six years in the future (1988).

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

(COMMENT)

WOW, !!! Nothing under international law, relative to "territorial integrity" applied to Palestine.

• Article 2(4) of the Charter applies to members. In 1948, it was the Arab League that used force to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel [The Jewish State as recommended by the UN Membership Part II - Boundaries, Section "B", A/RES/181(II)].

• The UN, the successor organization to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 77(1a) - International Trusteeship System, held the Article 16 passage of all TITLE and RIGHTS to the Territory formerly under Mandate. Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System. As you so often remind us, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is as universal as the objective for peace. AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

• Finally, these century old arguments have been overtaken be events. No matter what agency might interpret the intent of the Allied Powers with regards to the future of the area formerly under the supervision of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration [OETA South - (Dec 1917 – Jun 1920)], they cannot be use to upset the general maintenance of peace --- as is the purpose of the UN.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."​

Where are they wrong?

In denying the Jews the same rights they themselves recieve of course. Like you they believe that they are the only group that should be allowed to have any rights to land, free determination and security. They are in breach of international laws that make them all collectively war criminals and as such should be arrested and tried for their crimes in the Hague.

You are very quick to point out that Israel is in breach of international laws that dont exist, yet ignore the arab muslims breaches of international laws that do exist. WHY IS THIS ?

The native Jews in Palestine had the same rights as the native Christians and Muslims. There was no distinction. They were all the people of the place.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think you understand your history.

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

(COMMENT)

Although there are more the 2 dozen citations referenced in 1982 A/RES/37/43 in the opening, there is no direct reference connecting "self-determination" or "territorial integrity" other than the UN Charter [Chapter I Article 1(2) and 2(4)]. And the Charter, while directly applicable to Israel as a Member Nation, has no influence or power relative to Palestine because (in 1982) there was no member nation called Palestine.

The Charter is equally applicable to all nations conceptually. What is good for Israel is good for every other member. There is nothing unique to the Palestinians that would come to be recognized as an observer nation --- six years in the future (1988).

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

(COMMENT)

WOW, !!! Nothing under international law, relative to "territorial integrity" applied to Palestine.

• Article 2(4) of the Charter applies to members. In 1948, it was the Arab League that used force to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel [The Jewish State as recommended by the UN Membership Part II - Boundaries, Section "B", A/RES/181(II)].

• The UN, the successor organization to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 77(1a) - International Trusteeship System, held the Article 16 passage of all TITLE and RIGHTS to the Territory formerly under Mandate. Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System. As you so often remind us, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is as universal as the objective for peace. AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

• Finally, these century old arguments have been overtaken be events. No matter what agency might interpret the intent of the Allied Powers with regards to the future of the area formerly under the supervision of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration [OETA South - (Dec 1917 – Jun 1920)], they cannot be use to upset the general maintenance of peace --- as is the purpose of the UN.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System.​

The UN has no authority over land or borders. It cannot create or negate the existence of states. The UN can only recognize states and grant membership. These are both political acts. There is no legal criteria necessary for these actions.

WRONG as the UN took over the duty of care handed to the LoN by the treaty of Sevres, treaty of Lausanne and the mandates still in place. They tried to alter international laws to bring about peace in the M.E. and failed because the arab muslims saw the UN as weak.

DO TRY AND READ UPON THIS SUBJECT AS YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK FOOLISH AND ILLITERATE WHEN YOU MAKE HALF BAKED CLAIMS YOU KNOW YOU CAN NEVER PROVE. uNLESS YOU ARE 100% CERTAIN THAT YOUR EVIDENCE WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE MATERIAL IN THE UN ARCHIVES DONT TRY TO PASS IT OF AS INTERNATIONAL LAW OR USE IT RETROSPECTIVELY.

 

[Shusha]

If the Mandate had title and rights.

And.

The Mandate was to create a Jewish Home.

Why didn't they just sign Palestine over to the Zionists?

They did.

The HoAP just refused to accept it, just like you are doing.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a bit lost here.

AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

Where are they wrong?

(COMMENT)

Crazy people are allowed to believe what they want. If the HoAP do not wish to recognize that which is a matter of history just because they do not like what is says, does not change what is right with the history and with the development of a culture and nation.

The HoAP just make it harder on themselves with a ever increasing detrimental effect on them. If the HoAP do not want to develop, then so be it. But they should not blame anyone but themselves.

Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System.

The UN has no authority over land or borders. It cannot create or negate the existence of states. The UN can only recognize states and grant membership. These are both political acts. There is no legal criteria necessary for these actions.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, the territory came under the jurisdiction of the UN.

Remember, the Treaty of Lausanne gave the Allied Powers the TITLE and RIGHTS to the area formerly supervised by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. The Allied Powers the created through the Council of the League of Nations, the Mandate System. But the TITLE and RIGHTS were still in the hands of the Allied Powers as the Mandatory Nations were selected. The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers. Now, it should be noted that just as the Mandate System (relative the Palestine) ran its course, so it was with the Trusteeship System (relative to Palestine). The inhabitants have exercised their right to self-determination; in the case of the West Bank, several times. So, now --- to talk intelligently --- Israel, and every other the remaining parties to the conflict, must use the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States when trying to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Now, again, the HoAP can claim that they have --- by some feat of magic --- sovereignty and independence over the area formerly supervised by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (later the Mandate for Palestine). But NOWHERE are the HoAP granted or recognized as having any control of territory; except for Gaza Area "A" and "B"... In fact, the Armistice Lines do not even exist relative to the West Bank or Gaza Strip. While the Jewish State of Israel has identifiable and concrete borders which are policed by the State, the Palestinians do not.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers.​

If the Mandate had title and rights.

And.

The Mandate was to create a Jewish Home.

Why didn't they just sign Palestine over to the Zionists?

Mission accomplished.

THEY DID IN 1923, AND THE JEWS DID NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS TO DEFEND AGAINST ATTACK UNTIL 1948 WHEN THEY DECLARED INDEPENDENCE OF THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE. THE ARAB MUSLIMS CALLING THEMSELVES PALESTINIANS HAD THE RIGHT TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM 1923 TO 1947 AND FAILED TO DO SO. ONCE THE JEWS SHOWED THEIR INTENT THE ARAB MUSLIMS INVADED IN A BID TO WIPE OUT THE JEWS AND TAKE THE LAND AS THEIRS.

WHY DO THE ARAB MUSLIMS ALWAYS LOSE THE WARS THEY START AGAINST ISRAEL WHEN THEY OUTNUMBER THEM 1 MILLION TO 1 ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think you understand your history.

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.

It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

(COMMENT)

Although there are more the 2 dozen citations referenced in 1982 A/RES/37/43 in the opening, there is no direct reference connecting "self-determination" or "territorial integrity" other than the UN Charter [Chapter I Article 1(2) and 2(4)]. And the Charter, while directly applicable to Israel as a Member Nation, has no influence or power relative to Palestine because (in 1982) there was no member nation called Palestine.

The Charter is equally applicable to all nations conceptually. What is good for Israel is good for every other member. There is nothing unique to the Palestinians that would come to be recognized as an observer nation --- six years in the future (1988).

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.

(COMMENT)

WOW, !!! Nothing under international law, relative to "territorial integrity" applied to Palestine.

• Article 2(4) of the Charter applies to members. In 1948, it was the Arab League that used force to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel [The Jewish State as recommended by the UN Membership Part II - Boundaries, Section "B", A/RES/181(II)].

• The UN, the successor organization to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 77(1a) - International Trusteeship System, held the Article 16 passage of all TITLE and RIGHTS to the Territory formerly under Mandate. Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" (which it did not), it would come from the UN Trusteeship System. As you so often remind us, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is as universal as the objective for peace. AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

• Finally, these century old arguments have been overtaken be events. No matter what agency might interpret the intent of the Allied Powers with regards to the future of the area formerly under the supervision of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration [OETA South - (Dec 1917 – Jun 1920)], they cannot be use to upset the general maintenance of peace --- as is the purpose of the UN.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."​

Where are they wrong?

In denying the Jews the same rights they themselves recieve of course. Like you they believe that they are the only group that should be allowed to have any rights to land, free determination and security. They are in breach of international laws that make them all collectively war criminals and as such should be arrested and tried for their crimes in the Hague.

You are very quick to point out that Israel is in breach of international laws that dont exist, yet ignore the arab muslims breaches of international laws that do exist. WHY IS THIS ?

The native Jews in Palestine had the same rights as the native Christians and Muslims. There was no distinction. They were all the people of the place.

AS WHERE THE JEWS INVITED TO MIGRATE TO PALESTINE AND SETTLE ON THE LAND. THEY HAD THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS INVITED TO MIGRATE TO TRANS JORDAN AND SETTLE ON THE LAND. THE SAME MANDATE AND INTERNATIONAL TREATY APPLIES TO BOTH PARTS OF PALESTINE. AND YOU ARE JUST SHOWING HOW IDIOTIC YOU ARE BY ARGUING ON A SUBJECT YOU KNOW YOU CANT WIN.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just trying to manipulate the language.

The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers.

If the Mandate had title and rights.

And.

The Mandate was to create a Jewish Home.

Why didn't they just sign Palestine over to the Zionists?

Mission accomplished.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that "the Mandate had title and rights." This is how you twist the language. The Allied Powers had the TITLE and RIGHTS --- something for which the HoAP did not have; not then and not now.

One (not all) of the objectives of the Mandate for Palestine was the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.

The reasoning behind what Great Britain and the other Allied Powers did (or did not do) was for the political leadership to understand.

Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch. But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just trying to manipulate the language.

The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers.

If the Mandate had title and rights.

And.

The Mandate was to create a Jewish Home.

Why didn't they just sign Palestine over to the Zionists?

Mission accomplished.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that "the Mandate had title and rights." This is how you twist the language. The Allied Powers had the TITLE and RIGHTS --- something for which the HoAP did not have; not then and not now.

One (not all) of the objectives of the Mandate for Palestine was the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.

The reasoning behind what Great Britain and the other Allied Powers did (or did not do) was for the political leadership to understand.

Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch. But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch. But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality.​

The Palestinians have done a pretty god job of defending themselves considering that they are an essentially an unarmed civilian population attacked by world superpowers.

The Palestinians did manage to get Britain to leave Palestine without creating their beloved Jewish National Home. Britain's only claim to fame is starting a never ending war that has so far created a hundred years of death an destruction. Stupid award for Britain. And Britain still supports that war.
Double stupid award for Britain.

And the Palestinians still reject surrendering home and rights to Zionist colonization. Cheers to the Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Palestinians have nothing to be proud of as a developing national; and have even less to boast about in terms of capability. None of the G-8 (Super Powers)(US UK FRG PRC JAPAN RUSSIA INDIA SAUDI ARABIA) have directly engaged the Arab Palestinians. Rest assured, had such a confrontation occurred, there would have been grave consequences. The last intermix (Nuclear Confrontation) of the Super Powers (US 'vs' USSR) was during the 1967 Six-Day War instigated by the Soviet Union; when the both the Arabs and Israelis misread the intentions of the other, and the intentional aggravation of the situation spurred by Soviet fingers.

While the Super Powers may tangle either directly or by proxy, until the events by their radical Islamic and Jihadist brethren in 9/11, the Super Powers had kept their distance from the Middle East opposition.

Most of the G-8 Super Powers were avoiding the volatile cocktail of domestic Arab politics, poor intelligence on opposition capabilities and intentions, the internal political situation driving fueling the military conflict, and the radicalized militants that drew religious contentions forward. In fact, the G-8 Super Powers failed to recognize the impact of religious extremism --- and implications that would prolong the confrontations for decades.

Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch. But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality.

The Palestinians have done a pretty god job of defending themselves considering that they are an essentially an unarmed civilian population attacked by world superpowers.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between radicalized Islamic Jihadist, Insurgents, and Terrorist attempting to antagonize legitimately formed governments and defending against an attack by a Super Power. The Arab Palestinians are the parent to asymmetric, unconventional, and politically-motivated violence to create an environment suitable to coerce and intimidate populations and governments into taking some action.

This is not "a pretty god job of defending themselves," no matter how you look at it.

Don't make the mistake of identifying those that kidnap and murder teenagers, directly assault school age children the inform and elderly, members of the public in prayer, purposely targeting innocent civilians as patriotic and heroic defenders of a righteous population and culture.

The Palestinians did manage to get Britain to leave Palestine without creating their beloved Jewish National Home. Britain's only claim to fame is starting a never ending war that has so far created a hundred years of death an destruction. Stupid award for Britain. And Britain still supports that war.

Double stupid award for Britain.

(COMMENT)

Yeah ... yeah ... No matter when the Mandatory Power left the territory, that would trigger a move to self-determination that would create a Jewish National Home.

And the Palestinians still reject surrendering home and rights to Zionist colonization. Cheers to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

I like to look a specific incidents when commenting. BUT, in general, the Palestinians can say that the containment and security countermeasures they have to endure are a direct result of their hostile intentions and their procrastination in the negotiation of a workable treaty.

In regards to the West Bank, Israel has a Peace Treaty with the Arab League Nation that had sovereignty over the West Bank; before Israeli Occupation.

In regards to the West Bank, Israel has a Peace Treaty with the Arab League Nation that had governorship over the Gaza Strip; before Israeli Occupation.
​

The longer it takes for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fade away and a new generation of Palestinians (that want peace) to takeover and negotiate peace, the worse the situation will become.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just trying to manipulate the language.

The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers.

If the Mandate had title and rights.

And.

The Mandate was to create a Jewish Home.

Why didn't they just sign Palestine over to the Zionists?

Mission accomplished.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that "the Mandate had title and rights." This is how you twist the language. The Allied Powers had the TITLE and RIGHTS --- something for which the HoAP did not have; not then and not now.

One (not all) of the objectives of the Mandate for Palestine was the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.

The reasoning behind what Great Britain and the other Allied Powers did (or did not do) was for the political leadership to understand.

Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch. But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch. But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality.​

The Palestinians have done a pretty god job of defending themselves considering that they are an essentially an unarmed civilian population attacked by world superpowers.

The Palestinians did manage to get Britain to leave Palestine without creating their beloved Jewish National Home. Britain's only claim to fame is starting a never ending war that has so far created a hundred years of death an destruction. Stupid award for Britain. And Britain still supports that war.
Double stupid award for Britain.

And the Palestinians still reject surrendering home and rights to Zionist colonization. Cheers to the Palestinians.

And what international traety states that the arab muslims were to recieve ALL of palestine for their national home. How about a link that say palestine and ALL palestine

The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians used terrorism, violence and simple bankruptsy after WW2 to force Britain out of palestine. If WW2 had not started then the arab muslims would have been evicted as illegal immigrants.

Dont forget the same International law that allowed the arab nations to expell the Jews also allows the Jews to expell the arab muslims, and the UN will have a fit when they enforce it