Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

OR in my word Israel is gift to jews from coalition in wwii, because jew help them against Germany and this undefined territory was part of Ottoman Empire which was letter on divided in small countries so they can placed Israel in there followed by armed and army support.

30 years out as they were granted the land in 1923 by the then sovereign owners

And soon world will repeat history and holly land would be given to people of palestine and I hope you will accept the master decision then.

Who will give the holy land to the arab muslims then, as this would be a war crime, a crime against humanity and a breach of every Geneva convention.

 

[Phoenall]

Where does it say that, as you know treaties are not open ended to the point that they can be interpreted many ways. What they say is what they mean. And in this case the sovereignty of the land was passed on to the LoN , not the inhabitants of the land. This meant that under the Laws prevalent at the time the LoN could dispose of the land as they saw fit. If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?

If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?​

They didn't. Ask Rocco. The British passed the baton to the UNPC.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as “provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.

Partition and the Law - 1948​

What about the other mandates then, like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

By the way Britain was not the mandate they were the ones who ran the Mandate for the LoN who took up the reins of sovereignty of the old Ottoman empire.

Why don't you try reading my post before responding?

I did and it clearly says that the LoN became sovereign land owners before the date of this treaty that was never made international law.

And once again you resort to biased and partisan sources for your information even though you know they are not truthful. So you lose again because you use flawed information

BS!

Quote the passage with link.

Your link above


until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate




So until the arab muslims either move out or show self determination in full the mandate is still in force

 

[Phoenall]

If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?​

They didn't. Ask Rocco. The British passed the baton to the UNPC.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as “provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.

Partition and the Law - 1948​

What about the other mandates then, like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

By the way Britain was not the mandate they were the ones who ran the Mandate for the LoN who took up the reins of sovereignty of the old Ottoman empire.

Why don't you try reading my post before responding?

I did and it clearly says that the LoN became sovereign land owners before the date of this treaty that was never made international law.

And once again you resort to biased and partisan sources for your information even though you know they are not truthful. So you lose again because you use flawed information

BS!

Quote the passage with link.

Your link above


until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate




So until the arab muslims either move out or show self determination in full the mandate is still in force

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Just like I said.

No it doesn't try reading it again

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Just like I said.

What state would that be then

state if of Palestine dumb.

So who was its ruler, what was its money, where was its capital, what was its flag. And all these had to be in place before 1917 when it was part of the ottoman empire ?

You are behaving like dumb or cruel person. you are defending Israel jew and making story as liked. but you can not change the history and facts figure. Under Ottoman Empire this region was administer from Damascus one of the estate of Ottoman Empire. How dumb you are, please search Ottoman empire.

I have and nowhere does it say that Palestine existed as a nation. In fact the term Palestine was hardly used by the Ottomans. The arab muslims were a minority according to the Ottoman census that was carried out 3 times prior to 1917 showing that the Jews owned most of what is now Israel. Those are the facts as gathered from the Ottoman historical records and are as good as any you can find

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Apart from what do we do with all those who migrated illegally to Palestine after 1923, which would be 80% of the current aqrab muslim population.

You are more jew than a jew, may be if I will try to convince to some jew would be better.

WRONG you just don't make any sense. Try posting on some islamonazi board in future

Because you are not jew as you told me before and you are trying to pose some one else agenda.

According to international law the sovereign owners of Palestine are the Jews, so try disputing this with your islamonazi propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.​

It looks like there is a disagreement here.

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;​

--------------------------------

Egyptian Israeli Armistice agreement, 1949

The parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure underArticle 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,​

Your cut and paste comes 25 years after this event and relates to the Mandate of Palestine and not any nation of palestine

 

[MJB12741]

All Palestinians without any titles or deeds to their stolen land should not be allowed to remain in Israel. Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.

Jordan should have taken them. Queen Noor never liked being asked why they didn't let them in.

King Abdullah is a very wise man. He marries the most gorgeous Palestinian & refuses to grant the rest of them a right of return. And who knows Palestinians better than Jordan?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Five short points needed to be made here.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.​

It looks like there is a disagreement here.

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;​

--------------------------------

Egyptian Israeli Armistice agreement, 1949

The parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure underArticle 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,​

(COMMENT)

1. This regurgitation of the Armistice Agreement fragment makes it very plain: The agreement was between Egypt and Israel; not Egypt and Palestine. The language used in the Agreement is a concession to the fact that the members of the Arab League considered the territory subject to the former Mandate of Palestine to be "Palestine." And that the Arab League, in 1949, consider the entirety of "Palestine" to be Arab territory. And the Arab League considered any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression. Thus, for the sake of peace, the term "Palestine" was used; but for the sake of legality, the Agreement was between Egypt and Israel.

2. The Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement of signed, 24 February at Rhodes --- was negotiated agreed upon and signed before the State of Israel admitted to the UN [A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949]. The Charter did not apply to Israel during the 1948-49 War of Independence.

3. It must be noted and completely understood that A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a non-binding Resolution, adopted a quarter century after the Armistice Agreements; and 14 years before the announced Independence of the State of Palestine. Paragraph 1 of A/RES/3236, applied just as well to Israel as it does to the other Palestinian People. The "right of self-determination" and the "right to independence and sovereignty" apply to ALL PEOPLE, and are not unique to the Arab Palestinians.

4. Resolution 194 [A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948] the Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator, does mention in Paragraph 11 the "right of return," was not further defined until A/AC.25/W/61 9 April 1951, two years (+) from the outbreak of hostilities; then revised in the Current Version of the 1967 Protocol, which is limited by Article 1C(1 thru 6)(Page 15). Of particular interest is the Paragraph 1C(3): "He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality." Interestingly enough, is the fact that the argument is made that the Palestinians in the West Bank had citizenship as Jordanians and then with the 1988 State of Palestine. Similarly, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had the protection of Egypt and then citizenship under the 1988 State of Palestine. Oddly enough, The Convention entered into force on 22 April 1954, and it has been subject to only one amendment in the form of a 1967 Protocol, which removed the geographic and temporal limits of the 1951 Convention; has little to say about "descendants." Since General Assembly Resolutions are not binding, there is a huge question as to whether the obligation or enforcement of Resolution 194 is even possible.

5. When Resolution A/RES/3236 was adopted and in Paragraph 2, cited the right of return, there was actually no international law that included the "right of refugees to return;" with the exception of the very questionable A/RES/194. That would not come until International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) two years later; it entered into force 23 March 1976, a decade after the Six-Day War. AND THEN, it is still questionable. The CCPR make the necessary exceptions to protect national security, and public order.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?​

They didn't. Ask Rocco. The British passed the baton to the UNPC.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as “provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.

Partition and the Law - 1948​

What about the other mandates then, like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

By the way Britain was not the mandate they were the ones who ran the Mandate for the LoN who took up the reins of sovereignty of the old Ottoman empire.

Why don't you try reading my post before responding?

I did and it clearly says that the LoN became sovereign land owners before the date of this treaty that was never made international law.

And once again you resort to biased and partisan sources for your information even though you know they are not truthful. So you lose again because you use flawed information

BS!

Quote the passage with link.

Your link above


until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate




So until the arab muslims either move out or show self determination in full the mandate is still in force

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition.​

Where does it say that Palestine was exempt?

Link?

Oh yeah, it was just more of Israel's say so.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.​

Britain prevented that from happening. That is why they kept a military presence for a civilian function.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support,​

Now that is funny. From Rothschild to little blue boxes to foreign "charity" to billions in military aid, Israel was created and exists on OPM.

Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does it even mention Palestinian. OH yeah. That is just more Palestinian say so.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition.​

Where does it say that Palestine was exempt?

Link?

Oh yeah, it was just more of Israel's say so.

(COMMENT)
Where does it say Palestine, both east and west of the Jordan, is absolutely included? Why do you suggest that it MUST BE the case?

Why would you suspect that "certain communities" would mean "all communities." Where is it defined that "certain communities" includes the Palestinians west of the Jordan River?

You want it to be true. That does not mean it is true.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does it even mention Palestinian. OH yeah. That is just more Palestinian say so.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition.​

Where does it say that Palestine was exempt?

Link?

Oh yeah, it was just more of Israel's say so.

(COMMENT)
Where does it say Palestine, both east and west of the Jordan, is absolutely included? Why do you suggest that it MUST BE the case?

Why would you suspect that "certain communities" would mean "all communities." Where is it defined that "certain communities" includes the Palestinians west of the Jordan River?

You want it to be true. That does not mean it is true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where is it defined that "certain communities" includes the Palestinians west of the Jordan River?

Where does it say "except Palestine" anywhere?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support,​

Now that is funny. From Rothschild to little blue boxes to foreign "charity" to billions in military aid, Israel was created and exists on OPM.

Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

You show yourself, as usual, to be both willfully ignorant and profoundly dishonest.

Israel is hardly as you ignorantly and dishonestly describe. In fact, Israel is a world economy.

Israel Economy Facts & Stats

With your ignorance and dishonesty now addressed, discuss for us the "Plight of the Pal'istanians". Discuss for us the billions of welfare dollars that have been showered upon a group of welfare scammers who are incapable of cobbling together even the most rudimentary of social structures and conventions.

Please do make your usual excuses for a collection of Islamic terrorist misfits who have contributed nothing to the world community other than welfare fraud and the promotion of hate and misery.

 

[Penelope]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support,​

Now that is funny. From Rothschild to little blue boxes to foreign "charity" to billions in military aid, Israel was created and exists on OPM.

Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

You show yourself, as usual, to be both willfully ignorant and profoundly dishonest.

Israel is hardly as you ignorantly and dishonestly describe. In fact, Israel is a world economy.

Israel Economy Facts & Stats

With your ignorance and dishonesty now addressed, discuss for us the "Plight of the Pal'istanians". Discuss for us the billions of welfare dollars that have been showered upon a group of welfare scammers who are incapable of cobbling together even the most rudimentary of social structures and conventions.

Please do make your usual excuses for a collection of Islamic terrorist misfits who have contributed nothing to the world community other than welfare fraud and the promotion of hate and misery.

the world economy, are you crazy. Its China, the EU and then the US. Israel is dependent on the US for aid. If they are the "world economy" they have best pay us back. They sponge off of all others. They hate the Evans but take their money, they bad mouth us but take our money. They are existent on OPM.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.​

It looks like there is a disagreement here.

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;​

--------------------------------

Egyptian Israeli Armistice agreement, 1949

The parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure underArticle 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,​

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.​

It looks like there is a disagreement here.

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;​

--------------------------------

Egyptian Israeli Armistice agreement, 1949

The parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure underArticle 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,​

YES! Agreed. Inalienable rights for Palestinians. A right of self determination. And a right of national dependence. Only, not in Israel.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support,​

Now that is funny. From Rothschild to little blue boxes to foreign "charity" to billions in military aid, Israel was created and exists on OPM.

Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

You show yourself, as usual, to be both willfully ignorant and profoundly dishonest.

Israel is hardly as you ignorantly and dishonestly describe. In fact, Israel is a world economy.

Israel Economy Facts & Stats

With your ignorance and dishonesty now addressed, discuss for us the "Plight of the Pal'istanians". Discuss for us the billions of welfare dollars that have been showered upon a group of welfare scammers who are incapable of cobbling together even the most rudimentary of social structures and conventions.

Please do make your usual excuses for a collection of Islamic terrorist misfits who have contributed nothing to the world community other than welfare fraud and the promotion of hate and misery.

the world economy, are you crazy. Its China, the EU and then the US. Israel is dependent on the US for aid. If they are the "world economy" they have best pay us back. They sponge off of all others. They hate the Evans but take their money, they bad mouth us but take our money. They are existent on OPM.

Is there any chance you could re-write the above pretending that you're a thinking human?

 

[theliq]

Challenger, et al,

I stand corrected --- and --- apologize.

montelatici, et al,

Just how are you trying to use this information and to prove what.

You mean like the Jews from Europe and went to Palestine?

I believe I already supplied the one thousand years of documentation that shows Jews went from Judea to Rome back to Israel.
You're really into ignoring material you can find on Wikipedia, Amazon or a Judaic bookstore.

Though completely false, even if it were true, I doubt that the people of Normandy who left Scandinavia a thousand or so years ago, would be welcome to set up a state for themselves in Norway at the expense of the Norwegians, you idiot.

You are ignoring the facts and accepting propaganda, which is what Hasbara editors have published in Wiki.

Now the facts:

"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"

"Though the finding may seem intuitive, it contradicts the notion that European Jews mostly descend from people who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago."

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

(COMMENT)

Almost 2000 years ago, (≈ AD 70), Jews were expelled en masse in 70 CE by their Roman conquerors (The Roman army, led by the future Emperor Titus). So what does the timeline prove to you?

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no historical evidence of a mass expulsion from Roman Judea in 70CE. Titus' objective was to destroy once and for all, the Temple cult in Jerusalem.

(COMMENT)

I re-read my comment and agree, it is not correctly representative of the historical event. You are correct. The expulsion was from Jerusalem (Great Revolt), by General Titus; not all of Judea.

Sincerely,
R

About Time you apologised