Palestinian Authority Makes New Threats. "We'll Hijack Your Planes."

[rhodescholar]

Is that why the Israeli government and military have Muslims in them, but 1 Jew living next door to you Palestinians is justification to slit the throats of children? Tell me more about ethnic cleansing, moron.

Not sure if anyone noticed, but the **** monte claimed in an adjacent thread about how the iraqi government was legitimate because it had a christian in it - one - mind, you - but claims that the Israeli government is not legit despite have over 1/3 of the parliament is arab muslim:

Why Arabs Loathe Hezbollah

Talk about a hypocritical, lying fucking turd...yet another lie by the piece of shit monte - they are piled higher than the dead fakestinians sent by hamas and abbas to kill jews.

 

[Roudy]

ogibillm, et al,

Yeah! I noticed that it is not the HAMAS view to end the resistance effort, or agree to a two-state solution.

can they raise an army? import goods? collect revenues?

(COMMENT)

With that said, at the very earliest --- it is unlikely that the status would change for one year unless the Arab Palestinians cease hostilities and bring a general close to military and terrorist operations; Article 6 GCIV.

I don't see that happening. So, it is probably not reasonable to assume that Israel would even consider reducing security countermeasure --- unless something extraordinary happens.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you posted this before you read the latest news. The Israelis finally come clean, there will not be a Palestinian state. Most neutral observers knew that the Israelis had no intention of allowing non-Jews to have sovereignty over the territory controlled by Israel. Now that it is official, what's next?

"After Labor rules out Palestinian state, Netanyahu says: 'Good morning, Herzog'"

“And then, at the beginning of the week, something happened. Members of the Labor Party decided that the two-state solution cannot be implemented,”

After Labor rules out Palestinian state, Netanyahu says: 'Good morning, Herzog'

Yeah so? They've tried everything and it seems that the only thing that Palestinians will agree to is the total destruction of Israel. So good morning (boker tov), this is who the Palestinians are. Say nighty night to the Palestinian state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

You have to read this --- every word carefully. (Apparently, you are confuse with the mening of "lie.")

P F Tinmore, et al,

I agree, 100%.

[

The UN Charter stipulates that ALL peoples have the "equal rights and self-determination."​

Have you heard the legal expression "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose?"

Everybody has rights, but nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others.

(COMMENT)

Thus the Arab Palestinian right to swing ends at asymmetric warfare.

No one denied the Arab Palestinians any rights. They just have never exercised them at the optimum time. And remember, the Arab Palestinian has no right to obstruct the Israel Right to Self-determination.

The title and rights to the territory went to the Allied Powers.
The Allied Powers set the conditions for immigration and the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
The Arabs did not like it.
The Arabs began a low intensity conflict.
The Jewish exercised their right to self-determination and declared independence.
The Arab low intensity conflict blossomed into a greater war support by the Arab League to achieve what they could not political acquire.
The Israeli's defeat the Arab contingent.
The Arab Palestinians refuse to make peace.
TheArabs periodically instigate conflict and blame it on the Israeli's​

There it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The title and rights to the territory went to the Allied Powers.​

That is a lie. The Allied Powers held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

The rest of your post is a crock of shit based on your false premise.

(COMMENT)

There is no "FAILS PREMISE." By Treaty, the future of these territories (renounced by the Ottoman/Turks --- to which the Mandate would apply) were to be settled by the Allied Powers (see Article 16 below).

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne or the League of Nations Covenant (not even Article 22) extends a promise to the Arab Palestinians; for anything. While the word "trust" is used in the covenant, as in "sacred trust" --- this refers to the "the reliance in the honesty," --- as in "a the sacred trust of civilization" --- OR --- strength and ability in the "performance of this trust." All focused on the "principle that the well-being and development;" which in most cases the Arab Palestinian rejected (three times before 1923). THIS IS NOT the same thing as confidence placed in a Mandatory by making that authority the nominal government over the of territory. And further, it is not even close to: 1) should be entrusted to advanced nations; 2) will entrust the League. And when Article 22 talks about "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire," --- it does not actually mention which "certain communities." Nothing in Article 22 is a promise to the Arab Palestinian. The territory did not go into Trust with the UN until
18 April 1946, when the League transfers all its assets to the United Nations (Article 77 Charter).

The three most relevant documents: 1) the Mudros Armistice (1918) Article 16,; 2) the Treaty of Sevres (1920) Article 132, and of course; 3) 1923 Peace Conference of Lausanne. All historic documents say substantially the same thing:

ARTICLE 16. Treaty of Lausanne: Part I --- Political Clauses

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

As you can see quite clearly, the Treaty relinquishes the "Title and Rights" of the former Sovereign (Ottoman/Turkish Empire) to the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Lausanne, nor any party thereto, is not hostage to Article 22. The Covenant does not speak to the Arab Palestinians. The Covenant is an arrangement between the members of the League; with any disputes resolved by decision of the League. Disputes that arise between a 1) Member of the League and a State which is not a Member of the League, or 2) between States not Members of the League, 3) the State or States not Members of the League are resolved pursuant to the provisions of Articles 12 to 16 inclusive. At no time, during the life of the Covenant, were the Arab Palestinians ever included. They were non-state actors until 1988; but the UN becoming the successor in 1945.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne or the League of Nations Covenant (not even Article 22) extends a promise to the Arab Palestinians; for anything.​

There you go with another false premise. The Treaty of Lausanne followed the customary international law and specified that the Palestinians would be the citizens of the newly created Palestine. As a people inside a defined territory the Palestinians were entitled to the standard list of inalienable rights.

Britain violated those rights then Israel took over and continued to violate those rights.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand. Did not the British Administration grant citizenship to the Mandate Government of Palestine under the Order in Council and the following Citizenship Order.

P F Tinmore,

You have to read this --- every word carefully. (Apparently, you are confuse with the mening of "lie.")

P F Tinmore, et al,

I agree, 100%.

[

The UN Charter stipulates that ALL peoples have the "equal rights and self-determination."​

Have you heard the legal expression "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose?"

Everybody has rights, but nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others.

(COMMENT)

Thus the Arab Palestinian right to swing ends at asymmetric warfare.

No one denied the Arab Palestinians any rights. They just have never exercised them at the optimum time. And remember, the Arab Palestinian has no right to obstruct the Israel Right to Self-determination.

The title and rights to the territory went to the Allied Powers.
The Allied Powers set the conditions for immigration and the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
The Arabs did not like it.
The Arabs began a low intensity conflict.
The Jewish exercised their right to self-determination and declared independence.
The Arab low intensity conflict blossomed into a greater war support by the Arab League to achieve what they could not political acquire.
The Israeli's defeat the Arab contingent.
The Arab Palestinians refuse to make peace.
TheArabs periodically instigate conflict and blame it on the Israeli's​

There it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The title and rights to the territory went to the Allied Powers.​

That is a lie. The Allied Powers held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

The rest of your post is a crock of shit based on your false premise.

(COMMENT)

There is no "FAILS PREMISE." By Treaty, the future of these territories (renounced by the Ottoman/Turks --- to which the Mandate would apply) were to be settled by the Allied Powers (see Article 16 below).

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne or the League of Nations Covenant (not even Article 22) extends a promise to the Arab Palestinians; for anything. While the word "trust" is used in the covenant, as in "sacred trust" --- this refers to the "the reliance in the honesty," --- as in "a the sacred trust of civilization" --- OR --- strength and ability in the "performance of this trust." All focused on the "principle that the well-being and development;" which in most cases the Arab Palestinian rejected (three times before 1923). THIS IS NOT the same thing as confidence placed in a Mandatory by making that authority the nominal government over the of territory. And further, it is not even close to: 1) should be entrusted to advanced nations; 2) will entrust the League. And when Article 22 talks about "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire," --- it does not actually mention which "certain communities." Nothing in Article 22 is a promise to the Arab Palestinian. The territory did not go into Trust with the UN until
18 April 1946, when the League transfers all its assets to the United Nations (Article 77 Charter).

The three most relevant documents: 1) the Mudros Armistice (1918) Article 16,; 2) the Treaty of Sevres (1920) Article 132, and of course; 3) 1923 Peace Conference of Lausanne. All historic documents say substantially the same thing:

ARTICLE 16. Treaty of Lausanne: Part I --- Political Clauses

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

As you can see quite clearly, the Treaty relinquishes the "Title and Rights" of the former Sovereign (Ottoman/Turkish Empire) to the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Lausanne, nor any party thereto, is not hostage to Article 22. The Covenant does not speak to the Arab Palestinians. The Covenant is an arrangement between the members of the League; with any disputes resolved by decision of the League. Disputes that arise between a 1) Member of the League and a State which is not a Member of the League, or 2) between States not Members of the League, 3) the State or States not Members of the League are resolved pursuant to the provisions of Articles 12 to 16 inclusive. At no time, during the life of the Covenant, were the Arab Palestinians ever included. They were non-state actors until 1988; but the UN becoming the successor in 1945.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne or the League of Nations Covenant (not even Article 22) extends a promise to the Arab Palestinians; for anything.​

There you go with another false premise. The Treaty of Lausanne followed the customary international law and specified that the Palestinians would be the citizens of the newly created Palestine. As a people inside a defined territory the Palestinians were entitled to the standard list of inalienable rights.

Britain violated those rights then Israel took over and continued to violate those rights.

(COMMENT)

I did not know that the remainder ot the non-Jewish population inside the territorial control set by the 1949 Armistice did not get Israeli citizenship; or did they.

This is just more Arab Palestinian portrayal and dramatization of being the "infinite victim;" unable to accept the consequences of their hostile and violent actions.

Can you show me this "standard list of inalienable rights."
(COMMENT)

The emphasis placed on the "inalienable" aspect of the rights adds absolutely nothing to the argument. It makes no difference as to whether we consider the "rights" incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being transferred or nontransferable. It really makes no difference as to whether the "rights' in question are secured by law, unable to be forfeited. The "PREMISE" is that such rights, as you might be implying, are not unique to the Arab Palestinian. Any right the "Arab Palestinian" has - corresponds to the exact same right the Israelis have.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is not law, there is nothing in the UDHR that is unique to the Palestinians. "The term "declaration" is used for various international instruments. However, declarations are not always legally binding. The term is often deliberately chosen to indicate that the parties do not intend to create binding obligations but merely want to declare certain aspirations." (UN Treaty Collection Glossary of Terms.)

While the UDHR does say that "the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," it does not delineate what (if any) rights are identifiable as "inalienable." "Dignity" is identified as an inherent right; but is unenforceable because it varies from culture to culture.

Article 6 of the UDHR specifies that "every child has the inherent right to life, (so life is an inherent right and is articulated more broadly --- which is also expressed in the Part III Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and the State has an obligation to ensure the child’s survival and development." But I found Article 37 to be peculiar, in that "(c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age." Article 47 of the CCPR also identifies the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources. Again, this is ambiguous and unenforceable. What is meant by "their natural wealth and resources?"

So, I ask: Where is this "Standard List of Inalienable rights?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Rocco et al,

The rights of the people of Palestine, as the inhabitants of Palestine when the Covenant of the League of Nations, were to be incorporated into the constitution that was to be drawn by the "inhabitants" with the assistance of the Mandatory.

As you well know, to prevent the inhabitants of Palestine from being ready for independence before enough European Jews could be flooded into Palestine, the British stopped the constitutional process. The British claimed that there was an agreement antecedent to the the Covenant of the League of Nations that prevented them from adhering to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This agreement was of course the Balfour Declaration. The Colonial Office made this clear in correspondence to the representatives of the people of Palestine.

"His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

This course of action by the British contravened Article 22 of the Covenant which states in part:

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

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

Delaying the process leading to independence contravened the Covenant's exhortation that "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples (the inhabitants ed.). Britain substituted its responsibility to insure the well-being of the people of Palestine (the inhabitants) to the well-being of certain inhabitants of Europe. In fact, Britain's decision to disregard its legal responsibility to the inhabitants was the seed that relegated their current status as colonized and occupied and refugees.

In Article 20, the Members of the League severally agreed that the Covenant abrogated all obligations and understandings that were inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant. By neglecting its responsibility for looking after the well-being of the people of Palestine and instead taking the role of insuring the well-being of people inhabiting Europe and elswhere, outside of Palestine, at the expense of the people of Palestine, the British signed the Covenant under false pretenses. .

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Again you make two assumptions that are not in evidence.

Rocco et al,

The rights of the people of Palestine, as the inhabitants of Palestine when the Covenant of the League of Nations, were to be incorporated into the constitution that was to be drawn by the "inhabitants" with the assistance of the Mandatory.

As you well know, to prevent the inhabitants of Palestine from being ready for independence before enough European Jews could be flooded into Palestine, the British stopped the constitutional process. The British claimed that there was an agreement antecedent to the the Covenant of the League of Nations that prevented them from adhering to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This agreement was of course the Balfour Declaration. The Colonial Office made this clear in correspondence to the representatives of the people of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is an agreement between the members within the accord. The Arab Palestinians were never a member. The Covenant only speaks to the member, and not any external observer. It is something an external to the membership can enforce. The have no standing.

How ever you want to describe it and however you wish to interpret it, a party external to the agreement cannot reinterpret or enforce something to which the members gave benign form of approval; whether or not that was not expressed clearly, in words, for the external to apply and interpret. It can be a form of silent approval; sometimes term as "tacit approval." If the membership does not choose to object or enforce a concept, clause, interpretation or meaning, the the act under scrutiny becomes acceptable.

Over the past centuries, state practice has developed a variety of terms to refer to international instruments by which states establish rights and obligations among themselves. The terms most commonly used are the subject of this overview. However, a fair number of additional terms have been employed, such as "statutes", "covenants", "accords" and others. In spite of this diversity of terminology, no precise nomenclature exists. In fact, the meaning of the terms used is variable, changing from State to State, from region to region and instrument to instrument. Some of the terms can easily be interchanged: an instrument that is designated "agreement" might also be called "treaty".
SOURCE: UN Treaty Collection Definition of key terms used in the UN Treaty Collection
​

In point of fact, the first 30 Articles to the Versailles Treaty (1919) is the tex of the Covenant to the League of Nations; but it is NOT included in the Treaty of Lausanne. It is thus made clear that the binding aspect of the Covenant was intended for the parties to the Treaty. There is no association or tie between the Treaty and the European Members, or between the Covenant and the Arab World or Middle East nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Lipush]

The PA warns the world they will encourage Arabs to hijack planes if demands are not met and the world is not more sympathetic to their plight. It's time to put the foot down.


PA Official Threatens: If World Not Sympathetic to Arab Cause, Arabs Will Hijack More Planes, Cut off Oil Supply

Senior Palestinian official and former peace negotiator Nabil Shaath said in an recent interview that if the Western world does not pay attention to the Arab cause, it risks more plane hijackings and global economic crises emanating from the Middle East.

In the interview, translated and released by MEMRI, Shaath slammed efforts to make peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and had special criticism for the American role in peace negotiations, saying, “Anything is better than American control of the negotiations. Anything. The US has never been a reliable honest broker. Never.”

He added that the US was “the strategic ally of Israel. Period.”

He said that the PA wanted an alternative negotiating strategy, referencing PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s call for talks “similar to the P5+1 framework”, which negotiated the recently-implemented Iran nuclear deal.


Read more at PA Official: Do We Have to Hijack Your Planes Again? - Israel News

But, but, but... They're peaceful! They're misunderstood! Eeeeevil Yahud!

 

[Lipush]

The PA warns the world they will encourage Arabs to hijack planes if demands are not met and the world is not more sympathetic to their plight. It's time to put the foot down.


PA Official Threatens: If World Not Sympathetic to Arab Cause, Arabs Will Hijack More Planes, Cut off Oil Supply

Senior Palestinian official and former peace negotiator Nabil Shaath said in an recent interview that if the Western world does not pay attention to the Arab cause, it risks more plane hijackings and global economic crises emanating from the Middle East.

In the interview, translated and released by MEMRI, Shaath slammed efforts to make peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and had special criticism for the American role in peace negotiations, saying, “Anything is better than American control of the negotiations. Anything. The US has never been a reliable honest broker. Never.”

He added that the US was “the strategic ally of Israel. Period.”

He said that the PA wanted an alternative negotiating strategy, referencing PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s call for talks “similar to the P5+1 framework”, which negotiated the recently-implemented Iran nuclear deal.


Read more at PA Official: Do We Have to Hijack Your Planes Again? - Israel News

What's so funny P F Tinmore ? Didn't you read what the Hellfire magnet said?

Who is going to do all that? The PA has no followers.

And they don't have planes either.

Nor Atomic bombs.

But they still wish they had so they could nuke our asses off.

They wish they could randomally kill whoever Jew in sight.

The Palestinians are the shittiest people on this earth, really. They prove it again and again

 

[Phoenall]

Except no group is saying such a thing.
Anymore strawman toys in your bag?

the nazis did

Yeah, and the world kicked their asses for it.
Just like the world should eradicate the Palestinian evildoers.

you are the nazi in this analogy.

do you want your ass kicked?

Can't stay on topic. Understandable considering your losing position of supporting Palestinian scum.

How many Jews in the Paelestinian government?
How many Jews in the Palestinian military?
What is the requirement for Palestinians to say they will live in peace with Jews?
Game over.

what real government? what military?

they want their own state.

and you can't get away from your own nazi words

Then why don't they form their own state. There is nothing stopping them apart from their own stupidity, greed and inability, they know that they would have to negotiate peace terms and mutual borders stop relying on international aid and abide by the UN charter. No one is stopping them from taking the last tiny step towards full statehood, but they have managed to brainwash millions of people into believing the Jews are forcibly stopping their representative from addressing the UN council and declaring full independence on proposed borders to be negotiated.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I agree, 100%.

[

The UN Charter stipulates that ALL peoples have the "equal rights and self-determination."​

Have you heard the legal expression "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose?"

Everybody has rights, but nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others.

(COMMENT)

Thus the Arab Palestinian right to swing ends at asymmetric warfare.

No one denied the Arab Palestinians any rights. They just have never exercised them at the optimum time. And remember, the Arab Palestinian has no right to obstruct the Israel Right to Self-determination.

The title and rights to the territory went to the Allied Powers.
The Allied Powers set the conditions for immigration and the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
The Arabs did not like it.
The Arabs began a low intensity conflict.
The Jewish exercised their right to self-determination and declared independence.
The Arab low intensity conflict blossomed into a greater war support by the Arab League to achieve what they could not political acquire.
The Israeli's defeat the Arab contingent.
The Arab Palestinians refuse to make peace.
TheArabs periodically instigate conflict and blame it on the Israeli's​

There it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The title and rights to the territory went to the Allied Powers.​

That is a lie. The Allied Powers held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

The rest of your post is a crock of shit based on your false premise.

So you can produce a valid unbiased and non partisan link that says the LoN held the land in trust for the inhabitants. Do you need help reading English as the two surrender terms agreed and signed handed over complete sovereignty of the former Ottoman empire lands to the LoN. The allies of WW1 were the losers, as that is what the Ottomans and Germans were termed at that time.


Your failure to produce even one viable link to your claims in regards to the arab muslims rights to the land in Palestine shows that you are not able to understand the reality and you just let your racist hatreds hold sway

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I agree, 100%.

[

The UN Charter stipulates that ALL peoples have the "equal rights and self-determination."​

Have you heard the legal expression "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose?"

Everybody has rights, but nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others.

(COMMENT)

Thus the Arab Palestinian right to swing ends at asymmetric warfare.

No one denied the Arab Palestinians any rights. They just have never exercised them at the optimum time. And remember, the Arab Palestinian has no right to obstruct the Israel Right to Self-determination.

The title and rights to the territory went to the Allied Powers.
The Allied Powers set the conditions for immigration and the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
The Arabs did not like it.
The Arabs began a low intensity conflict.
The Jewish exercised their right to self-determination and declared independence.
The Arab low intensity conflict blossomed into a greater war support by the Arab League to achieve what they could not political acquire.
The Israeli's defeat the Arab contingent.
The Arab Palestinians refuse to make peace.
TheArabs periodically instigate conflict and blame it on the Israeli's​

There it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The title and rights to the territory went to the Allied Powers.​

That is a lie. The Allied Powers held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

The rest of your post is a crock of shit based on your false premise.

So you can produce a valid unbiased and non partisan link that says the LoN held the land in trust for the inhabitants. Do you need help reading English as the two surrender terms agreed and signed handed over complete sovereignty of the former Ottoman empire lands to the LoN. The allies of WW1 were the losers, as that is what the Ottomans and Germans were termed at that time.


Your failure to produce even one viable link to your claims in regards to the arab muslims rights to the land in Palestine shows that you are not able to understand the reality and you just let your racist hatreds hold sway

So you can produce a valid unbiased and non partisan link that says the LoN held the land in trust for the inhabitants.​

------------------------
The Mandate system was instituted by the League of Nations in the early 20th century to administer non-self-governing territories. The mandatory power, appointed by an international body, was to consider the mandated territory a temporary trust and to see to the well-being and advancement of its population.

History & Overview of the British Palestine Mandate | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[Coyote]

Folks, this thread has wandered pretty far off topic, let's get back on please

 

[Boston1]

The idea that the Arab Muslims of the mandated area continue to make threats and carry them out against the international community should be reason enough of why internationally agreed restrictions and embargo's are employed against them.

Israel's security walls are their because the threat still exists.