Seek Peace, Pursue Justice in Israel-Palestine

[toastman]

P F Tinmore; et al,

A couple points need made here.

Link?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant and its intentions are determined by the Coven, not the external. The Covenant and its implementation are for the Covent to determine and not the outside observer. The Palestinian does not tell the Coven what to do or how to implement its own rules and by-laws.

Your citation is an opinion, and not a directive or by-law. While one opinion of the intent is to suggest that the people under the mandate did not have the ability to stand on their own, another intent was to establish a Jewish National Home. In any event, again, the implementation of the Covenant is a matter for the Coven; not a matter for the Palestinian. They don't have a voice in the matter; yet, the Coven listened and deliberated on their concerns (more so then what was required given the Arab/Palestinian attitudes).

It is difficult to follow your post because you are jumping all over the place trying to prove a point that is not there.

The League of Nations Covenant made no mention of a Jewish state or Jewish homeland. The beneficiaries of the mandates were the people not some foreigners out of Europe.



Resolution 181 was a plan to get the Palestinians to cede land to the Zionists for their Jewish state. The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did. The UN could not take Palestinian land without their permission and they didn't.

The Palestinians did not reject statehood. They rejected partition.

It is a matter of interpretation as to who denies whom the "right of self-determination." But it is historically demonstrated that the Coven (LoN/UN) made the offer to the Jewish people and they accepted - exercising their "right of self-determination" and it was the Arab/Palestinian, that has for more than six decades, attempting to deny Israels right to exist --- their right to self-determination.

My interpretation of self determination is simple. Natives have it. Foreigners don't.

You have never shown me where foreigners got the right to self determination.

The Arab/Palestinian had more than ample opportunity to use peaceful means in the resolution of their dispute --- they refused. And the opportunities they had were diminished, not by the Israeli --- but through their own unsuccessful bids (multiple times) to secure territorial gains through violence. And then, incredulously, attempt to tell the Coven that everyone else is wrong and that the Israel is the aggressor.

Let's make it clear! The conflict is the making of the Palestinian People, the Arab neighbors, and the cohorts out of Iran. It can be turn-off at any time by this same ad hoc coalition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who were the Palestinians to reject partition ?? They weren't even called Palestinians in 1947, during the proposed partition plan. The land was ruled by the British, and they recognized Israel's right to have a State in the land formerly known as the BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE. 65 years later, it's evident they made a huge mistake by not accepting the offer ! Even Abbas said so:
The Arabs made a mistake in 1947 when they rejected the UN partition plan, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Channel 2 on Friday.

Abbas: Arabs erred in rejecting 1947 partition plan | JPost | Israel News

 

[toastman]

The greedy Arabs should have accepted the offer, as they own the other 99% of the Middle East. But of course we know they wanted the entire ME to be 100% ISLAM .

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

A couple points need made here.


(COMMENT)

The Covenant and its intentions are determined by the Coven, not the external. The Covenant and its implementation are for the Covent to determine and not the outside observer. The Palestinian does not tell the Coven what to do or how to implement its own rules and by-laws.

Your citation is an opinion, and not a directive or by-law. While one opinion of the intent is to suggest that the people under the mandate did not have the ability to stand on their own, another intent was to establish a Jewish National Home. In any event, again, the implementation of the Covenant is a matter for the Coven; not a matter for the Palestinian. They don't have a voice in the matter; yet, the Coven listened and deliberated on their concerns (more so then what was required given the Arab/Palestinian attitudes).

It is difficult to follow your post because you are jumping all over the place trying to prove a point that is not there.

The League of Nations Covenant made no mention of a Jewish state or Jewish homeland. The beneficiaries of the mandates were the people not some foreigners out of Europe.



Resolution 181 was a plan to get the Palestinians to cede land to the Zionists for their Jewish state. The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did. The UN could not take Palestinian land without their permission and they didn't.

The Palestinians did not reject statehood. They rejected partition.



My interpretation of self determination is simple. Natives have it. Foreigners don't.

You have never shown me where foreigners got the right to self determination.

The Arab/Palestinian had more than ample opportunity to use peaceful means in the resolution of their dispute --- they refused. And the opportunities they had were diminished, not by the Israeli --- but through their own unsuccessful bids (multiple times) to secure territorial gains through violence. And then, incredulously, attempt to tell the Coven that everyone else is wrong and that the Israel is the aggressor.

Let's make it clear! The conflict is the making of the Palestinian People, the Arab neighbors, and the cohorts out of Iran. It can be turn-off at any time by this same ad hoc coalition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who were the Palestinians to reject partition ?? They weren't even called Palestinians in 1947, during the proposed partition plan. The land was ruled by the British, and they recognized Israel's right to have a State in the land formerly known as the BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE. 65 years later, it's evident they made a huge mistake by not accepting the offer ! Even Abbas said so:
The Arabs made a mistake in 1947 when they rejected the UN partition plan, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Channel 2 on Friday.

Abbas: Arabs erred in rejecting 1947 partition plan | JPost | Israel News

t
The BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE did not own any land. They were appointed to render administrative assistance and advise to the Palestinians.

 

[toastman]

It is difficult to follow your post because you are jumping all over the place trying to prove a point that is not there.

The League of Nations Covenant made no mention of a Jewish state or Jewish homeland. The beneficiaries of the mandates were the people not some foreigners out of Europe.



Resolution 181 was a plan to get the Palestinians to cede land to the Zionists for their Jewish state. The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did. The UN could not take Palestinian land without their permission and they didn't.

The Palestinians did not reject statehood. They rejected partition.



My interpretation of self determination is simple. Natives have it. Foreigners don't.

You have never shown me where foreigners got the right to self determination.

Who were the Palestinians to reject partition ?? They weren't even called Palestinians in 1947, during the proposed partition plan. The land was ruled by the British, and they recognized Israel's right to have a State in the land formerly known as the BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE. 65 years later, it's evident they made a huge mistake by not accepting the offer ! Even Abbas said so:
The Arabs made a mistake in 1947 when they rejected the UN partition plan, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Channel 2 on Friday.

Abbas: Arabs erred in rejecting 1947 partition plan | JPost | Israel News

t
The BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE did not own any land. They were appointed to render administrative assistance and advise to the Palestinians.

The British Ruled the Territory
Guess who rules it now however ??

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who were the Palestinians to reject partition ?? They weren't even called Palestinians in 1947, during the proposed partition plan. The land was ruled by the British, and they recognized Israel's right to have a State in the land formerly known as the BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE. 65 years later, it's evident they made a huge mistake by not accepting the offer ! Even Abbas said so:
The Arabs made a mistake in 1947 when they rejected the UN partition plan, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Channel 2 on Friday.

Abbas: Arabs erred in rejecting 1947 partition plan | JPost | Israel News

t
The BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE did not own any land. They were appointed to render administrative assistance and advise to the Palestinians.

The British Ruled the Territory
Guess who rules it now however ??

It was not their job to rule.

 

[toastman]

t
The BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE did not own any land. They were appointed to render administrative assistance and advise to the Palestinians.

The British Ruled the Territory
Guess who rules it now however ??

It was not their job to rule.

But the British Ruled the territory. What's so hard to comprehend about that ?
You make it seem like 'rule' is such a harsh thing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The British Ruled the Territory
Guess who rules it now however ??

It was not their job to rule.

But the British Ruled the territory. What's so hard to comprehend about that ?
You make it seem like 'rule' is such a harsh thing.

Britain ruled in violation of the LoN covenant and its own mandate.

That does not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

 

[toastman]

It was not their job to rule.

But the British Ruled the territory. What's so hard to comprehend about that ?
You make it seem like 'rule' is such a harsh thing.

Britain ruled in violation of the LoN covenant and its own mandate.

That does not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

What rights did they have ? Please provide a link that explains the rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But the British Ruled the territory. What's so hard to comprehend about that ?
You make it seem like 'rule' is such a harsh thing.

Britain ruled in violation of the LoN covenant and its own mandate.

That does not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

What rights did they have ? Please provide a link that explains the rights.

CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

 

[toastman]

Britain ruled in violation of the LoN covenant and its own mandate.

That does not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

What rights did they have ? Please provide a link that explains the rights.

CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

A swing and a miss !
Post a link that discusses the so called 'Palestinians' rights during the British Mandate of Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

What rights did they have ? Please provide a link that explains the rights.

CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

A swing and a miss !
Post a link that discusses the so called 'Palestinians' rights during the British Mandate of Palestine

The LoN covenant eluded to the same thing but the UN was more specific.

The UN did not create the right. It just incorporated existing law. Britain even mentioned it in their 1939 white paper. It was nothing new.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, your trying to interpret the will of the LoN/UN and their implementation of the generalized concept to a specific situation; long since overtaken by events.

It was not their job to rule.

But the British Ruled the territory. What's so hard to comprehend about that ?
You make it seem like 'rule' is such a harsh thing.

Britain ruled in violation of the LoN covenant and its own mandate.

That does not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

First, the UK (as the Mandatory) gave the decision back to the LoN/UN for resolution. The UK didn't do anything wrong.

The rights of the Palestinian were not negated. They were just disgruntled and uncooperative. Dissatisfied that they didn't get everything. They wanted "war" and they invaded to insure they got what they wanted ("war"). And how did that workout for them?

The Palestinian people are trying to reset the clock, move back in time, to a decision point that they can no longer have.

The UN/LoN set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish State and an Arab State. The Israelis cooperated and the Arab/Palestinian did not (it is that simple). You can dress it up any way you want, use any excuse, try any justification, blame everybody else. But at the end of the day, the lack of cooperation by the Arab/Palestinian put them in the situation in which they find themselves.

No whining about following the rules, the Covenant, the Mandate, the Treaty, the White Paper, the Declaration is going to change anything. The Partition was made. The Arab/Palestinian went to war (which is what they wanted) and the "x" wars later, they find themselves in today's situation. Everyone got what they demanded (the Jews got a state, and the Arabs got their war).

The argument of foreigners, no matter how strenuously you argue, is a mute point. The LoN/UN, the Mandate, the Treaty, the Declaration, it all was to include a Jewish National Home. The Jewish people were invited to the territory for that express purpose. And that intent was finally realized. Today, more than a half century later, the issue of who is a foreigner is not even arguable. It is done. The argument of who owns, controls, rules, occupies, etc, is over. It is done.

The Arab/Palestinian must recognize the reality of today, and move forward with those options and opportunities, or consign themselves to be just another failed state, a people who have demonstrated that they are beyond the ability for self government.

Trying to reinstate the paradigm of 1948 is impossible. Make the best with what you can now, or strangle in you own waste. No matter what argument you put forth, you have to ask: What is the end game? No matter what you want, no one is going to disestablish Israel.

So what is the "end game?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, your trying to interpret the will of the LoN/UN and their implementation of the generalized concept to a specific situation; long since overtaken by events.

But the British Ruled the territory. What's so hard to comprehend about that ?
You make it seem like 'rule' is such a harsh thing.

Britain ruled in violation of the LoN covenant and its own mandate.

That does not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

First, the UK (as the Mandatory) gave the decision back to the LoN/UN for resolution. The UK didn't do anything wrong.

The rights of the Palestinian were not negated. They were just disgruntled and uncooperative. Dissatisfied that they didn't get everything. They wanted "war" and they invaded to insure they got what they wanted ("war"). And how did that workout for them?

The Palestinian people are trying to reset the clock, move back in time, to a decision point that they can no longer have.

The UN/LoN set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish State and an Arab State. The Israelis cooperated and the Arab/Palestinian did not (it is that simple). You can dress it up any way you want, use any excuse, try any justification, blame everybody else. But at the end of the day, the lack of cooperation by the Arab/Palestinian put them in the situation in which they find themselves.

No whining about following the rules, the Covenant, the Mandate, the Treaty, the White Paper, the Declaration is going to change anything. The Partition was made. The Arab/Palestinian went to war (which is what they wanted) and the "x" wars later, they find themselves in today's situation. Everyone got what they demanded (the Jews got a state, and the Arabs got their war).

The argument of foreigners, no matter how strenuously you argue, is a mute point. The LoN/UN, the Mandate, the Treaty, the Declaration, it all was to include a Jewish National Home. The Jewish people were invited to the territory for that express purpose. And that intent was finally realized. Today, more than a half century later, the issue of who is a foreigner is not even arguable. It is done. The argument of who owns, controls, rules, occupies, etc, is over. It is done.

The Arab/Palestinian must recognize the reality of today, and move forward with those options and opportunities, or consign themselves to be just another failed state, a people who have demonstrated that they are beyond the ability for self government.

Trying to reinstate the paradigm of 1948 is impossible. Make the best with what you can now, or strangle in you own waste. No matter what argument you put forth, you have to ask: What is the end game? No matter what you want, no one is going to disestablish Israel.

So what is the "end game?"

Most Respectfully,
R

Your post is based on false premise. If Britain did not screw up its mandate there would be no need for them to write the 1839 white paper. There would have been no problem to shove onto the UN. Everything else is just an extension from that original problem.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I've seen so many Palestinians cite this 1939 White Paper, that they think it is true.

Your post is based on false premise. If Britain did not screw up its mandate there would be no need for them to write the 1839 white paper. There would have been no problem to shove onto the UN. Everything else is just an extension from that original problem.

(COMMENT)

The 1939 White Paper was a snap shot opinion, and not a policy document.

The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 of 2 October 1947

If I were you, I would lose your link to that 1939 White Paper, because it doesn't support your cause. It is like only reading half an argument.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I've seen so many Palestinians cite this 1939 White Paper, that they think it is true.

Your post is based on false premise. If Britain did not screw up its mandate there would be no need for them to write the 1839 white paper. There would have been no problem to shove onto the UN. Everything else is just an extension from that original problem.

(COMMENT)

The 1939 White Paper was a snap shot opinion, and not a policy document.

The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 of 2 October 1947

If I were you, I would lose your link to that 1939 White Paper, because it doesn't support your cause. It is like only reading half an argument.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. A good read.

Britain screwed up big time, indeed.

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.

They created an impossible situation that has created a never ending war with no solution in sight.

 

[irosie91]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I've seen so many Palestinians cite this 1939 White Paper, that they think it is true.

Your post is based on false premise. If Britain did not screw up its mandate there would be no need for them to write the 1839 white paper. There would have been no problem to shove onto the UN. Everything else is just an extension from that original problem.

(COMMENT)

The 1939 White Paper was a snap shot opinion, and not a policy document.

If I were you, I would lose your link to that 1939 White Paper, because it doesn't support your cause. It is like only reading half an argument.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. A good read.

Britain screwed up big time, indeed.

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms
of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.

They created an impossible situation that has created a never ending war with no solution in sight.

The never ending war began in 629 AD with the start of the
comprehensive ethnic cleansing of arabia. Since that time SEVERAL
HUNDRED MILLION people have died in GENOCIDES ----actual genocides
motivated by the ISA-RESPECTING CREED and a GROSS PROGRAM OF
CRIMINAL IMPERIALISM HAS PLAGUED THE GLOBE .... the program continues
unabated It is the longest living imperialist enterprise----and the
most brutal ------outdoing the persian, the assyrian, the babylonian,
the egyptian, the roman, and all of the reichs---- 1, 2 and 3