Palestinian identity ?

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's get is Straight:

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

(REFERENCE)

In the period between 1919 and 1922, when the basic decisions were made, the matter of "rights" were addressed in the Mandate for Palestine:

PREAMBLE
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

ARTICLE 2
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ARTICLE 15
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

ARTICLE 28
In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.

• ARTICLE 13
All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.

• ARTICLE 14
A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.
​

(COMMENT)

But in period 1919 and the end of the Mandate, the entire population of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine, were granted citizenship to the Territory. However, even General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) did not grant and "rights." The Resolution (Paragraph 11) made recommendations pertaining to: addressed the Issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. (“Compensation --- for those who did not wish to return --- should be paid for the property … and for loss of or damage to property.")

Right of Return was not guarantee as an unconditional Right of Return.
Recommendations conditional:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors.

2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.”
​

Not until the non-binding Resolution 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR --- first global expression), did additional rights become considered; and it was not until the adoption of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both created in 1966 and its passage into force (law) in 1976 (a decade after the Arab-Israeli War 1967). It should be noted that nothing in the UDHR, ICCPR or ECESCR can be a retroactive proscription. (CONCEPT: A law that operates to make criminal or punishable or in any way expressly affects an act done prior to the passing of the law.)

(REMEMBER)

The proclamation clause at the end of the preamble makes clear, however, that the Declaration as such does not create binding legal obligations. The term “declaration” has since been officially defined by the U.N. Secretariat as: “a formal and solemn instrument, suitable for rare occasions when principles of great and lasting significance are being enunciated.” UN Doc. E/CN.4/L.610 (1962). Though not legally binding, a declaration “may by custom become recognized as laying down rules binding upon States.” While not binding per se, soft law instruments may not only deploy important legal consequences, but also be as effective as «hard law». The UNHRC attempts to do this by interlacing the UDHR with the ICCPR and the ICESCR - creating the a single concept (collectively known as the Bill of Human Rights).

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all that answers my questions?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

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;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Resolution 3236 states that Palestinians have inalienable rights and that these rights pre date the resolution.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions,​

No they didn't.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country.​

OK but resolution 181 (which reiterates international law) states that all Palestinians whose normal residence is in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will be citizens of that state. And besides, the resolution states "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine.

So, your statement is only to deceive or at least incorrect.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country.​

OK but resolution 181 (which reiterates international law) states that all Palestinians whose normal residence is in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will be citizens of that state. And besides, the resolution states "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine.

So, your statement is only to deceive or at least incorrect.

(COMMENT)

Resolution is an offer with no acceptance by the Arab Palestinian. It is not a binding resolution. The Arab rejection has consequences.

There is no binding resolution or law, that stipulates: "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine. There are "non-binding resolutions, but the Arab Palestinians rejected every opportunity to participate.

Only the residents of the territory that becomes the Jewish State of Israel becomes an Israeli Citizen. But again, the Arab Palestinian rejected Resolution 181.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country.​

OK but resolution 181 (which reiterates international law) states that all Palestinians whose normal residence is in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will be citizens of that state. And besides, the resolution states "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine.

So, your statement is only to deceive or at least incorrect.

(COMMENT)

Resolution is an offer with no acceptance by the Arab Palestinian. It is not a binding resolution. The Arab rejection has consequences.

There is no binding resolution or law, that stipulates: "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine. There are "non-binding resolutions, but the Arab Palestinians rejected every opportunity to participate.

Only the residents of the territory that becomes the Jewish State of Israel becomes an Israeli Citizen. But again, the Arab Palestinian rejected Resolution 181.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Only the residents of the territory that becomes the Jewish State of Israel becomes an Israeli Citizen. But again, the Arab Palestinian rejected Resolution 181."

The residents of the territory that became the Jewish state were 45% non-Jews before they were evicted.

 

[Phoenall]

By the way you do realise that it is the Catholics that are the colonisers don't you.

Oh? How so?

Try reading some history as no Catholics existed until they colonised other regions

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read my posting. I don't think I said that; or even implied that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe you will find anywhere - that says "citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights." The "rights" were defined. The question is: What "rights" are you suggesting they have? What "rights" and where are they documented as applying?

The internationally recognized border to the territory for which the Mandate Applied, outlined the Mandate Government as defined by the Council and Allied Powers. It did not outline subdivisions like Transjordan (as a Article 22 "Certain Communities"). And in those defined responsibilities and powers, it clearly states that the Mandatory was to protect ("safeguarding") the "civil rights" and the "religious rights" of the inhabitants (irrespective of race and religion). Those are the only two "rights" that were mentioned and were not otherwise defined alla 1922.

While I do not think that the Mandate was to be interpreted totally within a strict compliance framework, the Mandate did stipulate that the authority, control or administration would be "explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations." And while "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration."

Most Respectfully,
R

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

They had the same rights as everyone else did in 1917, until their leaders signed them away in the surrender treaties. So in effect they became stateless and landless vagabonds with no right to anything.

What rights did the Germans have after 1919 when they surrendered, or the Jews in 1933 to 1945 when they were mass murdered ?

They had the same rights as everyone else did in 1917, until their leaders signed them away in the surrender treaties.​

Link?

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country.​

OK but resolution 181 (which reiterates international law) states that all Palestinians whose normal residence is in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will be citizens of that state. And besides, the resolution states "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine.

So, your statement is only to deceive or at least incorrect.

(COMMENT)

Resolution is an offer with no acceptance by the Arab Palestinian. It is not a binding resolution. The Arab rejection has consequences.

There is no binding resolution or law, that stipulates: "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine. There are "non-binding resolutions, but the Arab Palestinians rejected every opportunity to participate.

Only the residents of the territory that becomes the Jewish State of Israel becomes an Israeli Citizen. But again, the Arab Palestinian rejected Resolution 181.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Only the residents of the territory that becomes the Jewish State of Israel becomes an Israeli Citizen. But again, the Arab Palestinian rejected Resolution 181."

The residents of the territory that became the Jewish state were 45% non-Jews before they were evicted.

And if they had not taken up arms against Israel they would now be Israeli citizens, but you cant see that can you.

Only one problem with your figures they are not provable as the source is the same for every report, a biased anti semitic committee

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's get is Straight:

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

(REFERENCE)

In the period between 1919 and 1922, when the basic decisions were made, the matter of "rights" were addressed in the Mandate for Palestine:

PREAMBLE
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

ARTICLE 2
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ARTICLE 15
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

ARTICLE 28
In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.

• ARTICLE 13
All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.

• ARTICLE 14
A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.
​

(COMMENT)

But in period 1919 and the end of the Mandate, the entire population of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine, were granted citizenship to the Territory. However, even General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) did not grant and "rights." The Resolution (Paragraph 11) made recommendations pertaining to: addressed the Issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. (“Compensation --- for those who did not wish to return --- should be paid for the property … and for loss of or damage to property.")

Right of Return was not guarantee as an unconditional Right of Return.
Recommendations conditional:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors.

2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.”
​

Not until the non-binding Resolution 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR --- first global expression), did additional rights become considered; and it was not until the adoption of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both created in 1966 and its passage into force (law) in 1976 (a decade after the Arab-Israeli War 1967). It should be noted that nothing in the UDHR, ICCPR or ECESCR can be a retroactive proscription. (CONCEPT: A law that operates to make criminal or punishable or in any way expressly affects an act done prior to the passing of the law.)

(REMEMBER)

The proclamation clause at the end of the preamble makes clear, however, that the Declaration as such does not create binding legal obligations. The term “declaration” has since been officially defined by the U.N. Secretariat as: “a formal and solemn instrument, suitable for rare occasions when principles of great and lasting significance are being enunciated.” UN Doc. E/CN.4/L.610 (1962). Though not legally binding, a declaration “may by custom become recognized as laying down rules binding upon States.” While not binding per se, soft law instruments may not only deploy important legal consequences, but also be as effective as «hard law». The UNHRC attempts to do this by interlacing the UDHR with the ICCPR and the ICESCR - creating the a single concept (collectively known as the Bill of Human Rights).

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all that answers my questions?

Because it shows what the rights were at the time and how those rights were not taken away from them. Unlike the Jews who faced mass expulsion and murder because they rejected muslim rule.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

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;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Resolution 3236 states that Palestinians have inalienable rights and that these rights pre date the resolution.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Did not exist until 1974 so cant be applied to 1917, 1923, 1948 or 1967.

They received those rights on the date the resolution became international law, when was that again ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions,​

No they didn't.

Read the history books and you will see that they did, starting in 1917 and ending in 1988. In fgact in 1948 they gave up then right to free determination when they allowed Jordan and Egypt to annexe their lands

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country.​

OK but resolution 181 (which reiterates international law) states that all Palestinians whose normal residence is in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will be citizens of that state. And besides, the resolution states "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine.

So, your statement is only to deceive or at least incorrect.

(COMMENT)

Resolution is an offer with no acceptance by the Arab Palestinian. It is not a binding resolution. The Arab rejection has consequences.

There is no binding resolution or law, that stipulates: "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine. There are "non-binding resolutions, but the Arab Palestinians rejected every opportunity to participate.

Only the residents of the territory that becomes the Jewish State of Israel becomes an Israeli Citizen. But again, the Arab Palestinian rejected Resolution 181.

Most Respectfully,
R

Was Israel created as part of the resolution 181 process or was it a unilateral move?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country.​

OK but resolution 181 (which reiterates international law) states that all Palestinians whose normal residence is in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will be citizens of that state. And besides, the resolution states "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine.

So, your statement is only to deceive or at least incorrect.

Which international; laws are those then, and on what date did they become Law. Remember that resolutions are not always made into laws, and many are just recommendations like 181.

If they gave up their homes and property and left under a false hope of stealing Jewish property then they lose that property, just as if you leave your property in the US for an extended period of time ( only short before the courts agree it has been abandoned ) you cant reclaim it at a later date. So why are you calling for rights that you don't personally have to be applied to squatters and land thieves

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

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;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Resolution 3236 states that Palestinians have inalienable rights and that these rights pre date the resolution.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Did not exist until 1974 so cant be applied to 1917, 1923, 1948 or 1967.

They received those rights on the date the resolution became international law, when was that again ?

The resolution reaffirmed already existing rights. So when did they obtain these rights was my question.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the term "inalienable rights" means that: The right(s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. It does not actually define the right (what it is a right to).

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that was the question I posed to you. You claim that there is a "LAW" --- "TREATY" --- "BINDING RESOLUTION" or something that stipulates the Palestinians "obtain these rights." I say there is not. I can not prove your case.

While there is Article 13(2) of the UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country. Under the right of self-determination, and the fact that the Arab Palestinian rejected opportunities for self governing institutions, I can find no foundation to base your assertion.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." BUT, Israel is not the Palestinians country.​

OK but resolution 181 (which reiterates international law) states that all Palestinians whose normal residence is in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will be citizens of that state. And besides, the resolution states "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine.

So, your statement is only to deceive or at least incorrect.

(COMMENT)

Resolution is an offer with no acceptance by the Arab Palestinian. It is not a binding resolution. The Arab rejection has consequences.

There is no binding resolution or law, that stipulates: "return to their homes and property" not to Palestine. There are "non-binding resolutions, but the Arab Palestinians rejected every opportunity to participate.

Only the residents of the territory that becomes the Jewish State of Israel becomes an Israeli Citizen. But again, the Arab Palestinian rejected Resolution 181.

Most Respectfully,
R

Was Israel created as part of the resolution 181 process or was it a unilateral move?

Both and the international law of 1923 also played a large part in the birth of Israel. UN res 181 laid down the groundwork, the Mandate of Palestine poured the foundations allowing the Jews who were all Palestinian citizens to declare independence in may 1948. The arab muslims once again missed a chance to create something wonderfull

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read my posting. I don't think I said that; or even implied that.

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe you will find anywhere - that says "citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights." The "rights" were defined. The question is: What "rights" are you suggesting they have? What "rights" and where are they documented as applying?

The internationally recognized border to the territory for which the Mandate Applied, outlined the Mandate Government as defined by the Council and Allied Powers. It did not outline subdivisions like Transjordan (as a Article 22 "Certain Communities"). And in those defined responsibilities and powers, it clearly states that the Mandatory was to protect ("safeguarding") the "civil rights" and the "religious rights" of the inhabitants (irrespective of race and religion). Those are the only two "rights" that were mentioned and were not otherwise defined alla 1922.

While I do not think that the Mandate was to be interpreted totally within a strict compliance framework, the Mandate did stipulate that the authority, control or administration would be "explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations." And while "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration."

Most Respectfully,
R

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

They had the same rights as everyone else did in 1917, until their leaders signed them away in the surrender treaties. So in effect they became stateless and landless vagabonds with no right to anything.

What rights did the Germans have after 1919 when they surrendered, or the Jews in 1933 to 1945 when they were mass murdered ?

They had the same rights as everyone else did in 1917, until their leaders signed them away in the surrender treaties.​

Link?

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote the passages that say what you said.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of all that answers my questions?

(COMMENT)

It itemizes the rights you asked about, documents them, and evaluate them in terms of Pre-1948 obligations, Post-1948. then Post-1976.

With the exception of "self-determination" which was not promised until 1945 (but still under Mandate), the Arab Palestinians had limited rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but:

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;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Resolution 3236 states that Palestinians have inalienable rights and that these rights pre date the resolution.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Did not exist until 1974 so cant be applied to 1917, 1923, 1948 or 1967.

They received those rights on the date the resolution became international law, when was that again ?

The resolution reaffirmed already existing rights. So when did they obtain these rights was my question.

Were does it say that ?

Find the laws that give those rights and you will your answer, and it seems that you cant find anything that predates 1974