Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry it went over your head.I rest my case.RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
R
Good choice as you never presented a coherent, defendable case to begin with.
RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
R
And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
RAnd who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
Try zero.RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
RAnd who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
Your point? I’m guessing you don’t have one.
I’m starting to lose count over the amount of times Rocco has destroyed your arguments.
Sorry it went over your head.I rest my case.RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
R
Good choice as you never presented a coherent, defendable case to begin with.
RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
RAnd who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
Look it up.RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
RAnd who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
You’re still proceeding on a false premise.
(COMMENT)I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
RAnd who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
Look it up.RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
RAnd who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
You’re still proceeding on a false premise.
And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I'm at a loss for words.
(COMMENT)When I post:
The people have the right to self determination without external interference.
Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.
If it was as simple as you make it out so be,
When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:
Article 10 (LoN) Covenant said:The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) said:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.
The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.
To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).
Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Most Respectfully,
RAnd who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people who, as a collective, had the legal right to become one of those independent States mentioned in the LoN Covenant and who had the right to territorial integrity without aggression and external interference.
The LoN Covenant upholds the premise that "interference" in the form of tutelage by advanced nations for those preparing for independence is not only permitted, but is a sacred trust of civilization.
The LoN Covenant is an agreement between the parties; explicitly in and for the parties. The Allied Powers made such agreements between themselves.
Most Respectfully,
R
And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people who, as a collective, had the legal right to become one of those independent States mentioned in the LoN Covenant and who had the right to territorial integrity without aggression and external interference.
The LoN Covenant upholds the premise that "interference" in the form of tutelage by advanced nations for those preparing for independence is not only permitted, but is a sacred trust of civilization.
What are you babbling about? The native Jews always had the same rights as the rest of the Palestinians.Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people
Indeed, and they agreed that the Mandates would not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty would be in the hands of the inhabitants.RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,
I don't know why the LoN Covenant is discussed in the context of Arab Palestinian legal rights. It is not like the Arab Palestinian is a party to the contract. The Covenant makes no binding commitment or promise to the Arab Palestinian any implicit or explicit fashion.
(COMMENT)And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?
The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.
Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people who, as a collective, had the legal right to become one of those independent States mentioned in the LoN Covenant and who had the right to territorial integrity without aggression and external interference.
The LoN Covenant upholds the premise that "interference" in the form of tutelage by advanced nations for those preparing for independence is not only permitted, but is a sacred trust of civilization.
The LoN Covenant is an agreement between the parties; explicitly in and for the parties. The Allied Powers made such agreements between themselves.
Most Respectfully,
R