Should Israel have been created?

[irosie91]

tinsy----try to live with the fact that there has been a jewish
population in the Middle east for some 4000 years----and it
has a right to self-determination. There is no reason to
suggest that arabs who have resided in the middle east
do not also have a right to self-determination----there is enough
land in the middle east for everyone. Considering recent
social developements----the self determination rights of the
1700 year old christian community must also be acknowleged--
along with the 1200 year old muslim community

 

[RoccoR]

P F TINMORE, et al,

Don't quibble with words. Remember, Mandatory and Trustee are the same thing.

The territory was given over to the Mandatory

No it wasn't.

(COMMENT)

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.

SOURCE: Sevres Treaty: Part III

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

What you call "external interference" is really the "will of the General Assembly" concerning an obligation under Charter, Treaty and executed by Resolution.

Your citation is not applicable, as there is specific language within the charter concerning Trusteeship (AKA: Mandates). You are not citing the Charter or the Law. You are citing a dissertation from the IHL, which amplifies the GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) more than the Charter. In this case, the conflict arising from the hostilities opened by the Palestinians are surely applicable. Nothing in GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) authorizes settlement through armed insurgent activity; in fact, it speaks to the contrary.

WOW, a whole page of external interference.

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

(COMMENT)

Again, GA Resolution 181(II) was a non-binding, voluntary agreement (by offer) between the GA and two parties. Since it was voluntary - it did not require Security Council Action. The power and authority of the Security Council does not extend over peaceful agreements by the GA.

The General Assembly shall perform such functions with respect to the international trusteeship system as are assigned to it under Chapters XII and XIII, including the approval of the trusteeship agreements for areas not designated as strategic.

Note: The UN Trustee Council is the successor organization to LoN Mandate System.​

​

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IV: The General Assembly

The Charter does not preclude action by the GA relative to Trusteeship (formerly Mandates). In this case, it was a "Charter Obligation" and not "External Interference;" since, by Charter the action are authorized. External Interference applies to a set of different situations. In fact, while the Charter does use the words "self-determination" once, in Chapter I, it doesn't use the words "external influence" at all in the entire Charter. That is unique phrasing in the 1970 GA Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States. And it require compliance with the Charter. Trusteeships (Mandates) are cited in the Charter. In this case, the Palestinians are in non-compliance. (Failure to Recognize and Armed Aggression)

The functions of the United Nations with regard to trusteeship agreements for all areas not designated as strategic, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the General Assembly.

The Trusteeship Council, operating under the authority of the General Assembly shall assist the General Assembly in carrying out these functions.

Note: In 1922, on the establishment of the Palestine Mandate, there was no designation of "strategic" over the region of Palestine.​

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

b. to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;

I don't think "the peoples" or "inhabitants" means foreigners out of Europe.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F TINMORE, et al,

Don't quibble with words. Remember, Mandatory and Trustee are the same thing.

The territory was given over to the Mandatory

No it wasn't.

(COMMENT)

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.

SOURCE: Sevres Treaty: Part III

Most Respectfully,
R

the administration of Palestine,

Not ownership. Not sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

P F TINMORE, et al,

Quibbling again.

P F TINMORE, et al,

Don't quibble with words. Remember, Mandatory and Trustee are the same thing.

No it wasn't.

(COMMENT)

Most Respectfully,
R

the administration of Palestine,

Not ownership. Not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

I didn't say "ownership or Sovereignty." That was something you injected.

The Palestinians had neither. You keep raising that issue. Ownership is a "real estate" term, it doesn't imply anything relative to the type and kind of sovereignty.

By the way, what was given over, was a "suzerainty status" of the empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MHunterB]

The largest group of Israeli Jews are the Sephardi and Mizrachi communities, which are something like 40% of Jewish Israelis. Another about 15 and 11 % respectively come from Africa and Asia: that means TWO THIRDS of Israeli Jews are NOT 'American/European' in descent/culture.

 

[irosie91]

The largest group of Israeli Jews are the Sephardi and Mizrachi communities, which are something like 40% of Jewish Israelis. Another about 15 and 11 % respectively come from Africa and Asia: that means TWO THIRDS of Israeli Jews are NOT 'American/European' in descent/culture.

Marge---give up----the issue is OUTSIDERS ----for tinsy---
a muslim born in egypt---of parents born in somalia----who
migrates to "palestine" at age 10----is an INSIDER----and
a jew born in safed----to parents who were born in Italy---
sicily (which I believe comes to be sephardi---sorta) who
migrated to "palestine when they were age 10---is an
OUTSIDER. Keep in mind---a jew born in ethiopia---
which is---if I remember correctly---- virtually swimming
distance to saudi arabia and genetically--
--in its mixed pool cannot
enter saudi arabia------but a mexican ---who is
a descendant of montezuma ----who CONVERTS to islam
by saying approximately six words in arabic-----is elegible
to be a HAJJI There are 'insiders' and there
are" 'outsiders' -----for jews the only way to stay in
palestine is to be born there before 1922---join the
SHOEMAKERS CASTE AND NOT
BE ELIGIBLE TO BUY LAND OR IMPORT ONE's
EGYPTIAN COUSIN FROM ALEXANDRIA----ask tinsy.

of course if one is a muslim born in "palestine"---he is

eligible to buy extra wives in pakistan and import them
to Jaffa ask tinsy. For that matter---a Saudi---born
in saudi arabia is eligible to become a land owning
PALESTINIAN too------for that matter an argentinian
can do the seven words in arabic thing ----and become
an INSIDER

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Ah, yes, now here you are zeroing in on the issue.

Thanks for the link.

b. to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;

I don't think "the peoples" or "inhabitants" means foreigners out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

As our friend "MHunterB" points out, over time - and through change, the demographics become something different.

The largest group of Israeli Jews are the Sephardi and Mizrachi communities, which are something like 40% of Jewish Israelis. Another about 15 and 11 % respectively come from Africa and Asia: that means TWO THIRDS of Israeli Jews are NOT 'American/European' in descent/culture.

Remember not to apply the literal "general rule" to the "specifics" govern by Treaty (or as the Charter says, terms of the trusteeship). But in general, that is what the UN did. It moved forward with a plan that would meet the general and the specific intentions. GA Resolution 181(II) did just that with the Partition Plan that offered both sets of people, outlined under the Treaty, an opportunity for "self-government or independence." The Israeli accepted, and the Palestinian declined, escalating aggression with the assistance of "external interference" by the Arab League. This was constant with their established pattern of hostile and warlike behavior.

It suggest that the Arab/Palestinian was as described, under Article 22 of the Covenant, "not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." It is quite possible that the Arab/Palestinian was not ready to assume a roll of a sovereign and independent people. Clearly, even given the withdrawal, the people of Gaza show these descriptive characteristics of a people unable "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement" under conditions of "peace and security." (A pattern of behavior.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F TINMORE, et al,

Quibbling again.

P F TINMORE, et al,

Don't quibble with words. Remember, Mandatory and Trustee are the same thing.


(COMMENT)

Most Respectfully,
R

the administration of Palestine,

Not ownership. Not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

I didn't say "ownership or Sovereignty." That was something you injected.

The Palestinians had neither. You keep raising that issue. Ownership is a "real estate" term, it doesn't imply anything relative to the type and kind of sovereignty.

By the way, what was given over, was a "suzerainty status" of the empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

Remember, the mandate was to render assistance and advice to Palestine. Palestine and its inhabitants were already there. And, when the mandate left Palestine Palestine and its inhabitants were still there. Well at least the inhabitants that had not gotten the boot yet.

Talk about quibbling with words.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Ah, yes, now here you are zeroing in on the issue.

Thanks for the link.

b. to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;

I don't think "the peoples" or "inhabitants" means foreigners out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

As our friend "MHunterB" points out, over time - and through change, the demographics become something different.

The largest group of Israeli Jews are the Sephardi and Mizrachi communities, which are something like 40% of Jewish Israelis. Another about 15 and 11 % respectively come from Africa and Asia: that means TWO THIRDS of Israeli Jews are NOT 'American/European' in descent/culture.

The takeover was by the Europeans. It was not until the mid 40s that immigrants started pouring in from Arab/Muslim countries. These immigrants had little to do with the actual takeover.

Remember not to apply the literal "general rule" to the "specifics" govern by Treaty (or as the Charter says, terms of the trusteeship). But in general, that is what the UN did. It moved forward with a plan that would meet the general and the specific intentions. GA Resolution 181(II) did just that with the Partition Plan that offered both sets of people, outlined under the Treaty, an opportunity for "self-government or independence." The Israeli accepted, and the Palestinian declined, escalating aggression with the assistance of "external interference" by the Arab League. This was constant with their established pattern of hostile and warlike behavior.

It suggest that the Arab/Palestinian was as described, under Article 22 of the Covenant, "not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." It is quite possible that the Arab/Palestinian was not ready to assume a roll of a sovereign and independent people. Clearly, even given the withdrawal, the people of Gaza show these descriptive characteristics of a people unable "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement" under conditions of "peace and security." (A pattern of behavior.)

Is any of this smoke relevant?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

aaaahhhh Now I understand tinsy-----he resents the fact that there
were european jews STRONG enough withstand the filth of jihadism-----
some 150 years ago. Jews who had-----at sometime in their lives
----actually held a weapon in their hands in complete violation of
the filth and stench of shariah law that tinsy so loves for its
nazi overtones Jews who were actually brave enough to
OWN A HORSE---<gasp>
in complete violation of the filth and stench of dhimmia
oppression. For those who do not understand
just who tinsy believes is "legally" entitled to
citizenship amongst the jews of "palestine"-----it is the
population that tolerated the stink and filth of slavery
-----the "good jews" ------like the good "nigras"
of the southern plantations that stayed on to pick the
cotton. As weird as it all sounds----the issue really
rests on the fact that islamo nazis are CASTE
PEOPLE. Jews in "islamic lands" constitute
a caste-----something like blacks in southern USA

 

[MHunterB]

Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | Foreign Policy Journal

While this site is all tarted up to appear as some legitimate media outlet for an actual 'think tank' type organization - it's really only a person's blog. I just don't consider those things very authoritative.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F TINMORE, et al,

Don't quibble with words. Remember, Mandatory and Trustee are the same thing.

No it wasn't.

(COMMENT)



Most Respectfully,
R

the administration of Palestine,

Not ownership. Not sovereignty.

THE British were in the nature of trustees, administrators, they never had ownership or sovereignty of the land within the Mandate.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F TINMORE, et al,

Quibbling again.

P F TINMORE, et al,

Don't quibble with words. Remember, Mandatory and Trustee are the same thing.


(COMMENT)

Most Respectfully,
R

the administration of Palestine,

Not ownership. Not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

I didn't say "ownership or Sovereignty." That was something you injected.

The Palestinians had neither. You keep raising that issue. Ownership is a "real estate" term, it doesn't imply anything relative to the type and kind of sovereignty.

By the way, what was given over, was a "suzerainty status" of the empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

BUT the indigenous peoples of Palestine have always had sovereignty rights, that is what you are wrong about, in not recognizing these rights they have in the land, these rights they have always had in the land.

 

[Hossfly]

P F TINMORE, et al,

Quibbling again.

Not ownership. Not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

I didn't say "ownership or Sovereignty." That was something you injected.

The Palestinians had neither. You keep raising that issue. Ownership is a "real estate" term, it doesn't imply anything relative to the type and kind of sovereignty.

By the way, what was given over, was a "suzerainty status" of the empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

BUT the indigenous peoples of Palestine have always had sovereignty rights, that is what you are wrong about, in not recognizing these rights they have in the land, these rights they have always had in the land.

Sherri and Tinnie are smoking the same batch of bellybutton lint. Pay attention to Rocco and read what he posts, along with the factual references. Jeez, you two are dense.

 

[toastman]

P F TINMORE, et al,

Quibbling again.

Not ownership. Not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

I didn't say "ownership or Sovereignty." That was something you injected.

The Palestinians had neither. You keep raising that issue. Ownership is a "real estate" term, it doesn't imply anything relative to the type and kind of sovereignty.

By the way, what was given over, was a "suzerainty status" of the empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

BUT the indigenous peoples of Palestine have always had sovereignty rights, that is what you are wrong about, in not recognizing these rights they have in the land, these rights they have always had in the land.

Says who ??? Provide a link at least Frau Sherri MunnerNazi

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

OK, there is the imaginary and then there is reality.

BUT the indigenous peoples of Palestine have always had sovereignty rights, that is what you are wrong about, in not recognizing these rights they have in the land, these rights they have always had in the land.

(COMMENT)

In 1517 -- the Ottomans defeat all comers and began the rule over Palestine for the next 4 centuries -- until the the end of WWI. Do you think for a moment, that the Arab/Palestinians had any right to self-determination or the right to independence and sovereignty? You don't think that even the talk of separation and independence of the region would not have been considered treason and insurrectionist talk and that the Ottoman Secret Police wouldn't drop on them like a ton of bricks? Do you think that any Islamic Nation gives their people the right to self-determination or the right to sovereignty from the nation?

What, exactly, do you think is the practical application of sovereignty and the right of self-determination? Where is that universally defined? Do you think that I can just declare my quarter acre of property sovereign from the nation, independent under my right of self-determination? I own it!

No, in reality - it doesn't work that way.

You use the terminology but have no idea how it works, how to apply it, or what happens after you get it. One needs only look at Gaza.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

THEY have a right of self determination in the land under intl law and the UN has recognized that right for over 65 years. COUNTLESS UN documents on UNISPAL WEBSITE ADDRESS THIS RIGHT OF THE Palestinian people in the land of Palestine. INTL LAW is what it is, noones dreams of Empire will change any of that!

 

[toastman]

THEY have a right of self determination in the land under intl law and the UN has recognized that right for over 65 years. COUNTLESS UN documents on UNISPAL WEBSITE ADDRESS THIS RIGHT OF THE Palestinian people in the land of Palestine. INTL LAW is what it is, noones dreams of Empire will change any of that!

Well, you did an excellent job in not disproving anything he just said !

Good job

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

FOR posters who are not little children, you should be able to find your way to the UNISPAL website and find dozens of documents addressing the Palestinian people's right of self determination in the land of Palestine.