Recognition not territory

[aris2chat]

http://www.passia.org/publications/Doc_on_palestine/1/2.pdf

 

[aris2chat]

Early Arab-Zionist Negotiation Attempts, 1913-1931: Early Arab ...
isbn:1136282378 - Google Search
Neil Caplan - 2013 - ‎Political Science
2) The Arabs welcome their Jewish brethren returning to the East, their ancient Homeland, and throw open the gates of their extensive territories to Jewish ... other than Jews, but they will desirethat no one shall dominate them or hamper their ...




>>
The Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, begins with the phrase "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...." At least two details in this language stand out: (1) the declaration commits to "a national home for the Jewish people" but not to "a Jewish state"; and (2) it supports "a national home" but not "the national home." This declaration introduces the concept of a Jewish national home into international relations in a most decisive manner.

On July 24, 1922, the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the Council of the League of Nations made the Zionist project a practical reality rather than simply a rhetorical position by holding that "the principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory [power] should be responsible for putting [the Balfour Declaration] into effect."

Beginning in the 1930s, several proposals, most notably the Peel Commission Report of 1937, suggested that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states. A decade later, UN Resolution 181 called for the establishment of "independent Arab and Jewish states and a special international regime for the city of Jerusalem." This partition resolution, along with a unilateral declaration of "a Jewish state in Eretz Israel" by the Jewish leadership, is generally regarded as the birth certificate of the Israeli state.

As a sovereign member state in the United Nations, Israel defines its own character. Yet the question of Israel's Jewishness has never been raised and is not reflected in its peace treaties with Egypt or Jordan. Asking Palestinians to enter into such a debate now seems odd and gratuitous.

The Palestinians have already recognized Israel as a Jewish state. This is most notable in PLO chairman Yasser Arafat's September 9, 1993, letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in which he stated unambiguously, "The PLO recognizes the right of the state of Israel to exist in peace and security." Yet today, Palestinians are justifiably concerned that if they were to recognize Israel explicitly as "the nation-state of the Jewish people" (to use Prime Minister Netanyahu's words), they might be perceived as endorsing measures that discriminate against the Palestinian citizens of Israel.<<

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK so where is this famous UN quote.

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

What here refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

I'm very interested in seeing where the UN make the determination that the Arab Palestinians had "Title and Rights" to any territory prior to 1988.

I don't think you can demonstrate Arab Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK so where is this famous UN quote.

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

What here refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

I'm very interested in seeing where the UN make the determination that the Arab Palestinians had "Title and Rights" to any territory prior to 1988.

I don't think you can demonstrate Arab Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go again reverting back to your Israeli propaganda talking points.

Recognizing​

that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

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;

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

Note that it says that Palestinians have the already existing inalienable right to self determination in Palestine. The Palestinians exist. Palestine exists. Where is Palestine? What were its international borders in 1974? When did the Palestinians get their already existing rights.

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

 

[Shusha]

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

Oh come on, Tinman! You really need to stop arguing against your own points. Like, really. Really, really.

If the "Palestinians" by your own definition are ALL those resident in the territory on August 1, 1925, then, by definition, each of the two groups of people who were resident there are not foreigners, but part of a people who hold those same inalienable rights to sovereignty and independence. (And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK so where is this famous UN quote.

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

What here refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

I'm very interested in seeing where the UN make the determination that the Arab Palestinians had "Title and Rights" to any territory prior to 1988.

I don't think you can demonstrate Arab Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go again reverting back to your Israeli propaganda talking points.

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

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;

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

Note that it says that Palestinians have the already existing inalienable right to self determination in Palestine. The Palestinians exist. Palestine exists. Where is Palestine? What were its international borders in 1974? When did the Palestinians get their already existing rights.

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

Oh come on, Tinman! You really need to stop arguing against your own points. Like, really. Really, really.

If the "Palestinians" by your own definition are ALL those resident in the territory on August 1, 1925, then, by definition, each of the two groups of people who were resident there are not foreigners, but part of a people who hold those same inalienable rights to sovereignty and independence. (And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)

This is all typical Tinmore Hamas talking points. The British clearly stated repeatedly that Palestinian statehood was a very recent idea, since as it never existed before. However they totally rejected the idea as the land was designated to be the future homeland of the Jewish people.

Now watch Tinmore say "who cares what the British said". Ha ha ha.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

Oh come on, Tinman! You really need to stop arguing against your own points. Like, really. Really, really.

If the "Palestinians" by your own definition are ALL those resident in the territory on August 1, 1925, then, by definition, each of the two groups of people who were resident there are not foreigners, but part of a people who hold those same inalienable rights to sovereignty and independence. (And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)

(And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)​

Good point. That is what I have been saying all along.

Thanks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

Oh come on, Tinman! You really need to stop arguing against your own points. Like, really. Really, really.

If the "Palestinians" by your own definition are ALL those resident in the territory on August 1, 1925, then, by definition, each of the two groups of people who were resident there are not foreigners, but part of a people who hold those same inalienable rights to sovereignty and independence. (And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)

You are the one arguing against your own point.

Except where do you get two groups? They were all Palestinians. Other than that, I agree.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK so where is this famous UN quote.

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

What here refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

I'm very interested in seeing where the UN make the determination that the Arab Palestinians had "Title and Rights" to any territory prior to 1988.

I don't think you can demonstrate Arab Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

What gave the Palestinians "Title and Rights" to territory in 1988 that they did not have previously?

 

[Phoenall]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

UN Legal said no such thing.

The UN was not around when these decision were made.

It was always the intention of the concerned leadership that the Arabs and the Jewish people, --- realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations.

There is no agreement treaty, or binding arrangement between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine, except as was attended in the between the UK and Jordan.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

(THE TITLE and RIGHT)

ARTICLE 16 The Lausanne Treaty ​

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 recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

Which superseded the previous surrender paragraph:

ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

Which superseded the previous surrender paragraph:

CLAUSE 16 The Armistice of Mudros

Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.​

There is absolutely "NO DEFECTION" here. I know that you think I live and breathe Israeli outlets, but these claims are highlighted from other sources.

Most Respectfully,
R

What here refutes my post?

Everything as it shows the arab muslims who cvall themselves palestinians never had any legal sovereingty over the land, so could not cede anything to anyone.
This is why we keep asking you to produce the evidence of international laws, international treaties and grants of title to the arab muslims who call themselves palestinians any time from 1099 when they were evicted after losing a war of their making.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

How about a link tjhat says the UN has bestowed another nations lands on the palestinians then, because that is what you have just stated is the case. Which is a breach of international law and a breach of the UN charter, as the UN does not have the authority to turn around international law on a whim and grant your land to another person.

Whan after 1923 did the palestinians acquire title to the land of Jewish palestine, and under what international law or treaty was this done ?



I think you are confused with reccomendationa and demands again

Could you provide a document mentioning a "Jewish Palestine?"

You mean like this


Mandate For Palestine


Political right to self-determination as a polity for Arabs, were guaranteed by the League of Nations, in four other mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Trans-Jordan.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s rights to Palestine, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations, is in serious conflict with the Mandate’s legal framework, set up on this date 90 years ago.

Until the United Nations remembers and accepts these obligations, a genuine peace between an Israeli government and its Arab neighbors is likely to remain elusive.

So you link to an Israeli propaganda site.

NO I link to a site that tells the truth and has supporting evidence from other sources. It uses material from the LoN, the UN and arab muslim sources for its evidence.

What do you have to refute this evidence other than LIES, BLOOD LIBELS and FABRICATIONS

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What non-sense is this?

In the real world, there are these thing that the imagination congers called "nonexistent object" (NOBJ) NOBJs are imaginary and do not exist. Examples: Zeus, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes, Vulcan, the perpetual motion machine, the golden mountain, the fountain of youth, the round square, etc. --- and of course something called "Jewish Palestine." There are NOBJs that serve a very real purpose and have an effect on outcomes in the real world; such as imaginary numbers.

This is a "political dilemma" in that it is asking for something that does not exist. And there are many such
Negative Singular Existence Statements.

Could you provide a document mentioning a "Jewish Palestine?"

(COMMENT)

Like many things that evolve, once it is transmuted, its former form no long exist. A Jewish National Home or Jewish State --- once it become a "reality" --- its former state does not exist.

Example: The room is "dark." If I turn the lights on, then the rooms former state of "darkness" is gone (no longer exists). The darkness is not in storage, shipped or carried away: and did not move. The room's condition was transmuted from being in darkness to being in light.

The same is true in the territory formerly under the Mandate. No matter what you choose to call its previous state, once it becomes the State of Israel (Jewish), it is no longer what it was before (Palestine).

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

Nice dodge.

Only when it refutes your POV, and in your mind. To everyone else it is showing you for the half wit that you are who argues the same thing ad naeseum hoping that it will be accepted as truth one day. The LoN declared that palestine was not to become wholly arab muslim or Jewish so partitioned it into two seperate identities. These were arab Palestine later called trans Jordan and Jewish palestine also known as the Jewish NATIONal home. The same international laws brought about the existence of trans Jordan and Israel, so if one does not exist then niether can the other, a concept that seems to be alien to you and you cant grasp that international laws work in the Jews favour as well as in the arab muslims favour

 

[Phoenall]

What is interesting is that the distinction that the Arab Palestinian draws between the difference of recognizing the "State of Israel" and that of the "Jewish State of Israel" or event the simple title of "Jewish State." ...

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (AHC Letter 6 February 1948 to Sec-Gen UN)
​

So we have it. The Arab Palestinians reject the notion of a "Jewish State" by do recognized "Israel's" right to exist.

So, in my mind, this is akin to saying that Israel accepts the notion of another state in Palestine, but rejects the idea that this state be "Palestinian". In other words, a state named "Palestine" can exist as long as it is a State for Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians and Jews and is not built upon the premise of a self-determination for Palestinians.

Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of splitting the territory (AGAIN!) into two parts?

Not really as Israel accepts that under international law 78% of palestine was for the creation of trans Jordan and the remaining 22% was fore the creation of the Jewish National home. The UN tried to illegally split the Jewish portion of palestine yet again because it was ran by anti semites and Jew haters. It was only after the Jews created Israel and where accepted by the UN that it altered its charter to support and defend the Jews and the international laws enacted in their favour. Now the islamic nations are taking control of the UN and are trying to force the UN into attacking Israel on trumped up charges of war crimes and human rights violations. The arab muslims calling themselves Palestinians should be evicted from the lands they illegally occupy and the ICC/ICJ should declare the international laws of 1917, 1921, 1923 and 1949 still in existence

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

Wait, seriously? When was that? When did Israel refuse?

It never has, this is just one of the many LIES tinny passes of as reality

 

[Phoenall]

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

Oh come on, Tinman! You really need to stop arguing against your own points. Like, really. Really, really.

If the "Palestinians" by your own definition are ALL those resident in the territory on August 1, 1925, then, by definition, each of the two groups of people who were resident there are not foreigners, but part of a people who hold those same inalienable rights to sovereignty and independence. (And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)

You are the one arguing against your own point.

Except where do you get two groups? They were all Palestinians. Other than that, I agree.

With equal rights to declare a state of their own on land granted to them under international laws, something you deny the Jews constantly.
Once the declaration was accepted the land was no longer open to any further claims. It has always been the illegal arab muslim immigrants that have tried to take the land by force and resorted to violence to enforce their will on the people

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And there you go again, misinterpreation and improper citation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK so where is this famous UN quote.

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

What here refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

I'm very interested in seeing where the UN make the determination that the Arab Palestinians had "Title and Rights" to any territory prior to 1988.

I don't think you can demonstrate Arab Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go again reverting back to your Israeli propaganda talking points.

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

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;

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

Note that it says that Palestinians have the already existing inalienable right to self determination in Palestine. The Palestinians exist. Palestine exists. Where is Palestine? What were its international borders in 1974? When did the Palestinians get their already existing rights.

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

(COMMENT)

First, UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237 give nothing to the Palestinians, nor are either binding on any party.

Second, the "right of self-determination" does not confer and "Title or Rights" to territory. It merely stipulates that given the proper circumstances, the Arab Palestinian can declare independence. But the "rights" of self-determination are not unique to the Arab Palestinians. And the Arab Palestinians cannot use their "rights" to interfere with the "rights" of others.

Third, the Arab Palestinians exercised their "right to self-determination" not just once but a few times. Each time the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development of autonomous government (no matter the reason) they exercised their "right of self-determination." The Arab Palestinians did this three time before 1923, the voted in April 1950 to be annexed by Jordan, AND they did it again in 1988 when they declared Independence. At no time were the Arab Palestinians denied their "right to self-determination."

Fourth, there is (as has been pointed out to you before) a timeline issue here. On 22 November 1974 the UN General Assembly passed two resolutions 3326 and 3327, that recognized the cause of Palestinian self-determination and the status of the PLO as representing the Palestinian people, and gave the PLO observer status at the UN.

• In the year 1974, the West Bank was still sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. Israel had nothing to do with obstruction the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination." The Hashemite Kingdom did not officially abandon the West Bank until 1988 when the King cut all ties with the West Bank.

• In 1974, while the Egyptian Military Governorship evacuated the Gaza Strip, and left the Israeli Occupation on its own, the Gaza Strip was in a status Terra Nullius (sovereignty was implicitly relinquished). While it should have been taken into care by the UN Trusteeship, that never happened. And Israel explicitly declined to assume sovereignty. Even the Arab Palestinians declined to declare independence (another example of Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination").
​

I'm beginning to believe that you don't understand what "rights" actually are. The philosophy of “rights” pertains only to take an action or oppose an action. — Specifically, it also means that there is a freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by others. The Arab Palestinian cannot use their right to interfere with the "rights" of the Israelis, or the "Title and Rights" transferred from the sovereign to another entity under the Treaty of Lausanne.

These citations you provided have no impact on the discussion at hand. Again, the Arab Palestinians had "Title and Rights" to any territory prior to 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK so where is this famous UN quote.

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

What here refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

I'm very interested in seeing where the UN make the determination that the Arab Palestinians had "Title and Rights" to any territory prior to 1988.

I don't think you can demonstrate Arab Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

What gave the Palestinians "Title and Rights" to territory in 1988 that they did not have previously?

Nothing as under International law they had no title or rights. This is a fake "right" granted by the islamic controlled UN committees that has no legal standing and should be withdrawn after 28 years of using it to wage war on the Jews and the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians evicted from Jewish land. Only when they lose completely that which they have acquired illegally will they realise that world is no longer party to their fight

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK so where is this famous UN quote.

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

What here refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

I'm very interested in seeing where the UN make the determination that the Arab Palestinians had "Title and Rights" to any territory prior to 1988.

I don't think you can demonstrate Arab Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go again reverting back to your Israeli propaganda talking points.

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

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;

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

Note that it says that Palestinians have the already existing inalienable right to self determination in Palestine. The Palestinians exist. Palestine exists. Where is Palestine? What were its international borders in 1974? When did the Palestinians get their already existing rights.

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

Where does it confer title and rights to Jewish sovereign land then. As self determination is not the same thing, and you are confusing issues because you dont understand the concepts behind the problems caused by islamic religious thinking and commands.


As you have been told and shown the only people preventing the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians from exercising free determination are the muslims themselves who have occupied the lands from 1917 until evicted by the Jews in 1967. The Jews have never stopped the true arab muslim inhabitants from showing free determination

 

[Phoenall]

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

Oh come on, Tinman! You really need to stop arguing against your own points. Like, really. Really, really.

If the "Palestinians" by your own definition are ALL those resident in the territory on August 1, 1925, then, by definition, each of the two groups of people who were resident there are not foreigners, but part of a people who hold those same inalienable rights to sovereignty and independence. (And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)

(And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)​

Good point. That is what I have been saying all along.

Thanks.

Which then brings us back to the question of when did the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians acqure the legal title to the land allowing them to permit immigration. We know that the Jews acquire thiers at the same time that trans Jordan did, so making any Jew arriving after this date a fully fledged citizen of palestine/Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

The fact that the Palestinians have been prevented from enjoying their inalienable rights to Sovereignty or Independence by foreign military occupation does not negate those rights.

Oh come on, Tinman! You really need to stop arguing against your own points. Like, really. Really, really.

If the "Palestinians" by your own definition are ALL those resident in the territory on August 1, 1925, then, by definition, each of the two groups of people who were resident there are not foreigners, but part of a people who hold those same inalienable rights to sovereignty and independence. (And, yes, people with sovereignty and independence have the right to permit (or deny) immigration. So don't even go there.)

You are the one arguing against your own point.

Except where do you get two groups? They were all Palestinians. Other than that, I agree.

When the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians decided to split the inhabitants into two groups of course, and started to attack the Jews who were there legally