No freedom of expression in Gaza

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Well, actually I did, but the thread on that topic has disappeared. I made a comparison to the six major points between the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) Covenant and the Palestine National Charter of 1968 of Record.

I'm barred from entering the thread so I may have touched a nerve. It says: "RoccoR, you do not have permission to access this page."

You have not given me their platforms - I linked to Fatah's..

(TRUNCATED COMMENT)

CHARTER: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

COVENANT: The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned.

----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- -------​

CHARTER: He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.

COVENANT: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.

• fighters join other fighters and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty while loudly proclaiming: Hail to Jihad.
  
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
  
• Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason,

----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- -------​

CHARTER: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.

COVENANT: The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.

----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- -------​

CHARTER:

• The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland,
  
• The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.

COVENANT:

• Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
  
• Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- -------​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Well, actually I did, but the thread on that topic has disappeared. I made a comparison to the six major points between the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) Covenant and the Palestine National Charter of 1968 of Record.

I'm barred from entering the thread so I may have touched a nerve. It says: "RoccoR, you do not have permission to access this page."

I suspect that it is not you personally but the thread might have ended up being trashed due to bad behavior on the part of participants.

But I don't quite understand something. Leaving aside Hamas for now, let's look at Fatah. You are basing your argument on a document from 1968. I found a link to a more recent internal charter of Fatah that is a very different document. In addition, your own link includes this change to the charter: Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations - Decisions and Actions Related to the Palestine National Charter

How can your points still stand in light of that?

And, back to the original point - how can you claim that the Palestinians support something that opinion poll after opinion poll indicates they do not? It seems this is more of a strategy to demonize that Palestinian people who do not have a lot of choice when it comes to elections.

 

[Coyote]

revolutions and insurgencies are processes, not final outcomes.

Well said.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote; et al,

I know this sound like a cop-out, but I do not believe the Charter was actually amended.

Coyote, et al,

Well, actually I did, but the thread on that topic has disappeared. I made a comparison to the six major points between the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) Covenant and the Palestine National Charter of 1968 of Record.

I'm barred from entering the thread so I may have touched a nerve. It says: "RoccoR, you do not have permission to access this page."

I suspect that it is not you personally but the thread might have ended up being trashed due to bad behavior on the part of participants.

But I don't quite understand something. Leaving aside Hamas for now, let's look at Fatah. You are basing your argument on a document from 1968. I found a link to a more recent internal charter of Fatah that is a very different document. In addition, your own link includes this change to the charter: Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations - Decisions and Actions Related to the Palestine National Charter

How can your points still stand in light of that?

And, back to the original point - how can you claim that the Palestinians support something that opinion poll after opinion poll indicates they do not? It seems this is more of a strategy to demonize that Palestinian people who do not have a lot of choice when it comes to elections.

(COMMENT)

Actually, no one on the Palestinian side can actually show where the PNC was changed.

On Jan. 13, 1998, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President Bill Clinton outlining the specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended as a result of that decision, and wrote that "all of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the PLO commitment to recognize and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect.”

On Dec. 14, 1998, in accordance with the Wye River Memorandum, both the PLO Executive Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision in the presence of President Clinton. President Clinton addressed the assembled Palestinian officials by stating, "I thank you for your rejection—fully, finally and forever—of the passages in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. For they were the ideological underpinnings of a struggle renounced at Oslo. By revoking them once and for all, you have sent, I say again, a powerful message not to the government, but to the people of Israel. You will touch people on the street there. You will reach their hearts there.”

As of June 16, 2006, the most recent date of the Palestinian National Charter on the official PLO website, the July 1-17, 1968 Charter remains in its original form, with an outline of the intended updates mentioned above. A more recent version of the Charter could not be found as of Dec. 29, 2011.

On Mar. 28, 2011, according to Eurasia Review, PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas asked the Executive Committee of the PLO to convene a Constitution Committee for the first time since 2006 with the intention of amending the PLO Charter by Sep. 31, 2011. As of Dec. 29, 2011, this committee has not convened and the Charter remains unchanged.]

SOURCE: What Is the 1968 Palestinian National Charter (PLO Charter)? - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org

Similarly, the wikipedia article quietly eludes to a similar thought.

Palestinian views

Reportedly, an internal PLO document from the Research and Thought Department of Fatah stated that changing the Covenant would have been "suicide for the PLO" and continued:

The text of the Palestinian National Covenant remains as it was and no changes whatsoever were made to it. This has caused it to be frozen, not annulled. The drafting of the new National Covenant will take into account the extent of Israeli fulfillment of its previous and coming obligations... evil and corrupt acts are expected from the Israeli side... The fact that the PNC did not hold a special session to make changes and amendments in the text of the National Covenant at this stage... was done to defend the new Covenant from being influenced by the current Israeli dictatorship.[29][30]​

In January 1998, before the second Gaza meeting, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, head of the legal committee appointed by the PNC, stated "There has been a decision to change the Covenant. The change has not yet been carried out".[31]

PLO spokesman Marwan Kanafani was videotaped telling reporters, "This is not an amendment. This is a license to start a new charter."[32][33]

Shift of focus to Hamas

In recent years, the subject of the Palestinian National Covenant has almost disappeared from the Israeli public discourse and debate. To a growing degree, especially after the electoral victory in the Hamas movement in the Palestinian elections of 2006, Israeli attention shifted to the Hamas Movement's own Covenant and the positions taken by the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Government.

In general, the new debate has tended to follow a similar pattern to the older one. One side of Israeli public opinion regards the perceived 'extreme' positions on the Palestinian side as a sign that Israel "has no partner", while the other appears to feel more lenient, seeking for signs of "pragmatism" on the opposing side.

SOURCE: Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, what do you think?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote; et al,

I know this sound like a cop-out, but I do not believe the Charter was actually amended.

Coyote, et al,

Well, actually I did, but the thread on that topic has disappeared. I made a comparison to the six major points between the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) Covenant and the Palestine National Charter of 1968 of Record.

I'm barred from entering the thread so I may have touched a nerve. It says: "RoccoR, you do not have permission to access this page."

I suspect that it is not you personally but the thread might have ended up being trashed due to bad behavior on the part of participants.

But I don't quite understand something. Leaving aside Hamas for now, let's look at Fatah. You are basing your argument on a document from 1968. I found a link to a more recent internal charter of Fatah that is a very different document. In addition, your own link includes this change to the charter: Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations - Decisions and Actions Related to the Palestine National Charter

How can your points still stand in light of that?

And, back to the original point - how can you claim that the Palestinians support something that opinion poll after opinion poll indicates they do not? It seems this is more of a strategy to demonize that Palestinian people who do not have a lot of choice when it comes to elections.

(COMMENT)

Actually, no one on the Palestinian side can actually show where the PNC was changed.

On Jan. 13, 1998, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President Bill Clinton outlining the specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended as a result of that decision, and wrote that "all of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the PLO commitment to recognize and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect.”

On Dec. 14, 1998, in accordance with the Wye River Memorandum, both the PLO Executive Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision in the presence of President Clinton. President Clinton addressed the assembled Palestinian officials by stating, "I thank you for your rejection—fully, finally and forever—of the passages in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. For they were the ideological underpinnings of a struggle renounced at Oslo. By revoking them once and for all, you have sent, I say again, a powerful message not to the government, but to the people of Israel. You will touch people on the street there. You will reach their hearts there.”

As of June 16, 2006, the most recent date of the Palestinian National Charter on the official PLO website, the July 1-17, 1968 Charter remains in its original form, with an outline of the intended updates mentioned above. A more recent version of the Charter could not be found as of Dec. 29, 2011.

On Mar. 28, 2011, according to Eurasia Review, PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas asked the Executive Committee of the PLO to convene a Constitution Committee for the first time since 2006 with the intention of amending the PLO Charter by Sep. 31, 2011. As of Dec. 29, 2011, this committee has not convened and the Charter remains unchanged.]

SOURCE: What Is the 1968 Palestinian National Charter (PLO Charter)? - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org

Similarly, the wikipedia article quietly eludes to a similar thought.

Palestinian views

Reportedly, an internal PLO document from the Research and Thought Department of Fatah stated that changing the Covenant would have been "suicide for the PLO" and continued:

The text of the Palestinian National Covenant remains as it was and no changes whatsoever were made to it. This has caused it to be frozen, not annulled. The drafting of the new National Covenant will take into account the extent of Israeli fulfillment of its previous and coming obligations... evil and corrupt acts are expected from the Israeli side... The fact that the PNC did not hold a special session to make changes and amendments in the text of the National Covenant at this stage... was done to defend the new Covenant from being influenced by the current Israeli dictatorship.[29][30]​

In January 1998, before the second Gaza meeting, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, head of the legal committee appointed by the PNC, stated "There has been a decision to change the Covenant. The change has not yet been carried out".[31]

PLO spokesman Marwan Kanafani was videotaped telling reporters, "This is not an amendment. This is a license to start a new charter."[32][33]

Shift of focus to Hamas

In recent years, the subject of the Palestinian National Covenant has almost disappeared from the Israeli public discourse and debate. To a growing degree, especially after the electoral victory in the Hamas movement in the Palestinian elections of 2006, Israeli attention shifted to the Hamas Movement's own Covenant and the positions taken by the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Government.

In general, the new debate has tended to follow a similar pattern to the older one. One side of Israeli public opinion regards the perceived 'extreme' positions on the Palestinian side as a sign that Israel "has no partner", while the other appears to feel more lenient, seeking for signs of "pragmatism" on the opposing side.

SOURCE: Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, what do you think?

Most Respectfully,
R

seeking for signs of "pragmatism" on the opposing side.

What is "pragmatism" when you are under occupation?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I have to chuckle with you.

seeking for signs of "pragmatism" on the opposing side.

What is "pragmatism" when you are under occupation?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that your inference is wrong. Given the duration of the dispute, the scope and nature of the issues, the cultural interests on both sides, it may be impossible to come to a straightforward practical way of addressing the compilation of grievances (both sides).

My concern is that neither side wants to go into some binding arbitration or litigation outcome.

But I think the "Occupation" card is highly over-played by the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I have to chuckle with you.

seeking for signs of "pragmatism" on the opposing side.

What is "pragmatism" when you are under occupation?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that your inference is wrong. Given the duration of the dispute, the scope and nature of the issues, the cultural interests on both sides, it may be impossible to come to a straightforward practical way of addressing the compilation of grievances (both sides).

My concern is that neither side wants to go into some binding arbitration or litigation outcome.

But I think the "Occupation" card is highly over-played by the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

And on forums too. Occupied from which country? Jordan? Jordan occupied it illegally in the first place. Just before Jordan's occupation the arabs had refused the partition and declared war on Israel, so we can't call Israel an 'occupier.'

 

[Coyote]

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

 

[Lipush]

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

Shavua Tov.

When it is your homeland, how can you be illegal occupier?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

The San Remo Mandate (yet again!).

 

[RoccoR]

Lipush, et al,

I will be the first to admit, that never has there been a more confusing piece of ground on the matter of who controls what.

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

Shavua Tov.

When it is your homeland, how can you be illegal occupier?

(COMMENT)

• In my view, I look at both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as individual territories under limited autonomous authority; but, separate and distinct.
  
• In my view, I see the Gaza Strip under security quarantine. A demonstrated threat that need to be contained.
  
• I see the West Bank under limited occupation and heavy border control to prevent penetration of sovereignty and to create a buffer zone between Israel and a former Arab aggressor state.

But more importantly, I see all sides to this dispute as active belligerents; aggravating the situation and one another.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Lipush]

Lipush, et al,

I will be the first to admit, that never has there been a more confusing piece of ground on the matter of who controls what.

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

Shavua Tov.

When it is your homeland, how can you be illegal occupier?

(COMMENT)

• In my view, I look at both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as individual territories under limited autonomous authority; but, separate and distinct.
  
• In my view, I see the Gaza Strip under security quarantine. A demonstrated threat that need to be contained.
  
• I see the West Bank under limited occupation and heavy border control to prevent penetration of sovereignty and to create a buffer zone between Israel and a former Arab aggressor state.

But more importantly, I see all sides to this dispute as active belligerents; aggravating the situation and one another.

Most Respectfully,
R

I guess that makes sense, up to some point

 

[Coyote]

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

The San Remo Mandate (yet again!).

IF you buy into the validity of that (and it's basically one Israeli lawyer who puts forth the argument), then you must also accept the fact that they were required to respect the indiginous Arab character of the land and that they should make the people within those territories full fledged citizens. They have not. Which could validate the arguments that it is apartheid.

 

[Coyote]

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

Shavua Tov.

When it is your homeland, how can you be illegal occupier?

By all definitions it is a military occupation and the non-Jewish indiginous inhabitants live under military rule. It's their homeland too you know.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

The San Remo Mandate (yet again!).

IF you buy into the validity of that (and it's basically one Israeli lawyer who puts forth the argument), then you must also accept the fact that they were required to respect the indiginous Arab character of the land and that they should make the people within those territories full fledged citizens. They have not. Which could validate the arguments that it is apartheid.

It is one Israeli Lawyer who discovered the document. The land was meant for the Jews according to the San Remo Mandate of 1922.. The fact that the arabs living in the land attacked the Jews on numerous occasions when in fact they had been given land for themselves elsewhere shows that the Jews did their best in a bad situation. The Hebron massacre comes to mind.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

The Palestinian claim of occupation is really a description of an ongoing conflict in which the Palestinian and Israelis are belligerents.

How is it not an occupation?

(COMMENT)

It is an occupation of a indefinite nature over an uncooperative and threatening population, on territorial ground between a sovereign state in the defense and an aggressor nation with an established history of multiple attacks in the last half century.

If you are a nationalist, it is better to be occupied than annexed. Normally, throughout the world, the general solution in case of indefinite occupation has been to establish the territory as an quasi-autonomous, unincorporated territory of the Occupier. But this only works if the general population not belligerent and wants to be a representative democracy or constitutional republic. An example would be American Samoa, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Commonwealth of Northern Marianas, or Puerto Rico --- an less like several quasi-protectorates, including the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Niue.

But again, the key is that the Palestinian People would want to build their own autonomous state with the benefits associated with Israeli citizenship, but without some of the burden of citizenship.

This is a quasi-one state solution.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Lipush]

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

Shavua Tov.

When it is your homeland, how can you be illegal occupier?

By all definitions it is a military occupation and the non-Jewish indiginous inhabitants live under military rule. It's their homeland too you know.

That is why we need to find a normal solution to all of this.

I don't like Ya'ir Lapid at all, lately, but in one thing he was write, he said that we need to find a solution to the Judea and Samaria issue, because "We don't want loving marriage with the Palestinians, but an 'amicable' divorce"

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Shavua Tov.

When it is your homeland, how can you be illegal occupier?

By all definitions it is a military occupation and the non-Jewish indiginous inhabitants live under military rule. It's their homeland too you know.

That is why we need to find a normal solution to all of this.

I don't like Ya'ir Lapid at all, lately, but in one thing he was write, he said that we need to find a solution to the Judea and Samaria issue, because "We don't want loving marriage with the Palestinians, but an 'amicable' divorce"

I would not live in the same house as the "husband" who I divorced, especially if he were to harm my children.

My responsibility as my children's "mother" is to guarantee their security safe from harm, and that cannot be done with a murderous "husband" living with us.

 

[Coyote]

The San Remo Mandate (yet again!).

IF you buy into the validity of that (and it's basically one Israeli lawyer who puts forth the argument), then you must also accept the fact that they were required to respect the indiginous Arab character of the land and that they should make the people within those territories full fledged citizens. They have not. Which could validate the arguments that it is apartheid.

It is one Israeli Lawyer who discovered the document. The land was meant for the Jews according to the San Remo Mandate of 1922.. The fact that the arabs living in the land attacked the Jews on numerous occasions when in fact they had been given land for themselves elsewhere shows that the Jews did their best in a bad situation. The Hebron massacre comes to mind.

It was one Israeli lawyer who interpreted it as a mandate giving the entire land to the Jews.

But what is ignored is:
San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

So...if it ALL belongs to the Jews, then all the inhabitants should be made full Israeli citizens.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

IF you buy into the validity of that (and it's basically one Israeli lawyer who puts forth the argument), then you must also accept the fact that they were required to respect the indiginous Arab character of the land and that they should make the people within those territories full fledged citizens. They have not. Which could validate the arguments that it is apartheid.

It is one Israeli Lawyer who discovered the document. The land was meant for the Jews according to the San Remo Mandate of 1922.. The fact that the arabs living in the land attacked the Jews on numerous occasions when in fact they had been given land for themselves elsewhere shows that the Jews did their best in a bad situation. The Hebron massacre comes to mind.

It was one Israeli lawyer who interpreted it as a mandate giving the entire land to the Jews.

But what is ignored is:
San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

So...if it ALL belongs to the Jews, then all the inhabitants should be made full Israeli citizens.

Weren't the inhabitants at the time offered to be made full citizens of the Jewish State, and if not could you show me a link as to why not.