Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
P F Tinmore, et al,
You are not applying this correctly.
Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.
(COMMENT)Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
It is about rights not about power.
First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.
No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.
Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.
Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.
The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.
No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
You are not applying this correctly.
Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.
(COMMENT)Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
It is about rights not about power.
First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.
No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.
Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.
Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.
The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.
No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
RFirst --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community.
The goal of BDS is to see the application of law. So maybe we can blow away some of that smoke.
BDS seems to be well planned. Surely unwinding over 60 years of colonialism will be complex. But BDS will give the Palestinians a sound footing to hammer out the many details.P F Tinmore, et al,
The BDS (by that I assume you mean the "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" Movement) is a non-violent means for Arab Palestinians, in deed anyone, to demonstrate there support. I have no problem with that. I read the commentary attached and don't see where you or I mention BDS.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
You are not applying this correctly.
Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.
(COMMENT)Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
It is about rights not about power.
First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.
No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.
Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.
Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.
The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.
No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
RFirst --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community.
The goal of BDS is to see the application of law. So maybe we can blow away some of that smoke.
BDS has nothing to do with the "application of law." It is a means of peaceful protest and support for the "right of return" which is NOT a matter of law.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now, so that the assertion won't remain ridiculous forever we must accompany it with the name of the emir, sultan, pasha, president, prime-minister, ie a head of that "state of palestine" with its "international borders", of course. Where are the names?!Thank you. Those are Palestine's international borders.
Life sucks. Don't start wars, of course.Over 700,000 non-Jewish residents were driven out by Zionist terrorist groups like Irgun.
Palistanians are living under martian law, of course.Have you ever lived under martial law?
Mentioning examples of the UN obsessions is a dumbass occupation, of course.The over 100 UN resolutions addressing Israeli human rights and international law violations.
Palistanian computer science implementation of the save/reload function to life sucks, of course. They should get a life and a job, instead.It is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.
Thank you. Those are Palestine's international borders.No it doesn't.No the reality that shows you cherry pick only those parts that support your POV. The LoN made a treaty in 1923 that granted the Jews 22% of Palestine for their NATIONal home. That treaty still stands today and it is the arab muslims that are illegally occupying Jewish landThe LoN made a treaty in 1923 that granted the Jews 22% of Palestine for their NATIONal home.
You need a reread of history. No part of Palestine was given to the Jews.
You need to read the mandate of Palestine that says just this, and delineates the area to be used
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:
PALESTINE
INTRODUCTORY.
POSITION, ETC.
Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.
On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -
North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.
East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.
South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.
West. – The Mediterranean Sea.
The Mandate did not mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.
It did mention, however, that the Jews could get Palestinian citizenship and live in Palestine with the other citizens.
The creation of Israel was outside the scope and authority of the Mandate.
BDS seems to be well planned. Surely unwinding over 60 years of colonialism will be complex. But BDS will give the Palestinians a sound footing to hammer out the many details.P F Tinmore, et al,
The BDS (by that I assume you mean the "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" Movement) is a non-violent means for Arab Palestinians, in deed anyone, to demonstrate there support. I have no problem with that. I read the commentary attached and don't see where you or I mention BDS.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
You are not applying this correctly.
Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.
(COMMENT)Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
It is about rights not about power.
First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.
No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.
Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.
Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.
The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.
No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
RFirst --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community.
The goal of BDS is to see the application of law. So maybe we can blow away some of that smoke.
BDS has nothing to do with the "application of law." It is a means of peaceful protest and support for the "right of return" which is NOT a matter of law.
Most Respectfully,
R
You misinterpret the meaning of Jewish National Home.Thank you. Those are Palestine's international borders.No it doesn't.The LoN made a treaty in 1923 that granted the Jews 22% of Palestine for their NATIONal home.
You need a reread of history. No part of Palestine was given to the Jews.
You need to read the mandate of Palestine that says just this, and delineates the area to be used
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:
PALESTINE
INTRODUCTORY.
POSITION, ETC.
Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.
On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -
North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.
East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.
South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.
West. – The Mediterranean Sea.
The Mandate did not mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.
It did mention, however, that the Jews could get Palestinian citizenship and live in Palestine with the other citizens.
The creation of Israel was outside the scope and authority of the Mandate.
Were does it say that in the report, I have seen where it says the mandate of Palestine to be used as the Jewish NATIONal home.
The mandate did not mention a nation of Palestine or a nation of Jordan either did it ?
Read it again as it clearly states " the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine "
Only until such time as they were ready to declare independence from the Mandate
It also mentioned that the arab muslims had been granted 78% of Palestine at the same time, but they were never given the option of migration and automatic citizenship.
Says who ? This means any nation founded in the M.E after 1917 is also outside the scope of the mandate and so you need to tell them all they don't exist.
Translation: You're too pussy to address the points I made.Let's just say I am too short on time to engage a ranting teenager who sizes things up with a scant bit of facts that favor his bravado.
Here's what you need to do...
go down to your local sporting goods store, go over to aisle 5, pick yourself up a set of balls, then come back here and debate like a man!
Why would I answer your questions, when you won't answer mine?Questions:
I didn't say purchasing land was illegal.What exactly did the Jewish settlers purchasing land from the Ottoman landlords do that was illegal?
More of your strawman bullshit!
Over 700,000 non-Jewish residents were driven out by Zionist terrorist groups like Irgun.How did they impose on anyone else's property or rights?
10% of the population, has no right calling themselves a country over 90% of the population.What people had a right to call it their country when there never has been a formal country there ever since Israelis were kicked out by the Romans?
They didn't go in to kill Jews. They went in to restore law and order after the British abdicated.What right did 5 Arab nations and 2 other coalition Arab armies have to try to go in in 1948 and murder as many Jews as they could muster? What was their just cause?
What a stupid question!What in the world is the Arabs big hate and gripe today?
Have you ever lived under martial law?
The over 100 UN resolutions addressing Israeli human rights and international law violations.
It is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.They want the Palestinians to have their own sovereign nation on the West Bank and Gaza? They want Jerusalem? How so?
And they only want East Jerusalem.
Israel started the '67 war by rolling their tanks into Egypt.They had all of that and more before the Arabs went to war once again in 1967. Explain.
Because they were provoked by the Israeli's.So if they had all that then why were they trying to destroy the Jews on two occasions before 1967?
Oslo Accords.What peace treaty did any Arab nation ever agree to, ever?
Olso Accords.What treaty were the Jews not willing to agree to or compromise?
Oh I see, Israel's right and the world is wrong?You and the U.N. and Russia and Persia and every Islamic nation and every cowardly Western govt make for fine bed fellows and equally find dishonest scoundrels.
You talk like a 10 year old!
You misinterpret the meaning of Jewish National Home.Thank you. Those are Palestine's international borders.No it doesn't.You need to read the mandate of Palestine that says just this, and delineates the area to be used
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:
PALESTINE
INTRODUCTORY.
POSITION, ETC.
Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.
On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -
North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.
East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.
South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.
West. – The Mediterranean Sea.
The Mandate did not mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.
It did mention, however, that the Jews could get Palestinian citizenship and live in Palestine with the other citizens.
The creation of Israel was outside the scope and authority of the Mandate.
Were does it say that in the report, I have seen where it says the mandate of Palestine to be used as the Jewish NATIONal home.
The mandate did not mention a nation of Palestine or a nation of Jordan either did it ?
Read it again as it clearly states " the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine "
Only until such time as they were ready to declare independence from the Mandate
It also mentioned that the arab muslims had been granted 78% of Palestine at the same time, but they were never given the option of migration and automatic citizenship.
Says who ? This means any nation founded in the M.E after 1917 is also outside the scope of the mandate and so you need to tell them all they don't exist.
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'-----------------------
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
The creation of a Jewish state would be contrary to the Mandate Charter and the LoN Covenant.
P F Tinmore, et al,
You are not applying this correctly.
Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.
(COMMENT)Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
It is about rights not about power.
First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.
No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.
Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.
Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.
The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.
No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
RFirst --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community.
The goal of BDS is to see the application of law. So maybe we can blow away some of that smoke.
What does opposition to government policy have to do with racism?P F Tinmore, et al,
You are not applying this correctly.
Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.
(COMMENT)Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
It is about rights not about power.
First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.
No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.
Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.
Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.
The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.
No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
RFirst --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community.
The goal of BDS is to see the application of law. So maybe we can blow away some of that smoke.
No it isn't as it only applies to those states that were present at the time as the convention states.
The laws of my country make it illegal to segregate one part of society and to introduce illegal constraints on them. By hindering the free passage of individuals because of racial, national or religious difference is actually a breach of Law. So BDS as an organisation is in breach of National law, Civil law and International law and should be proscribed as a RACIST ORGANISATION
(REFERENCE)You misinterpret the meaning of Jewish National Home.
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'-----------------------
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
The creation of a Jewish state would be contrary to the Mandate Charter and the LoN Covenant.
All of that blabber aside, where was it stated anywhere in the LoN Covenant, Or the Mandate Charter that they were to create a Jewish state?P F Tinmore, et al,
When WWII ended, the Mandatory Power (UK) had not yet had the opportunity to tackle the policies set-out in the 1939 White Paper; especially with so many key Arab personalities being either directly or indirectly in support of the NAZI Regime. (This may have been --- actually --- for the better.) The tragedy the Jewish People experienced throughout Europe and Russia had created a renewed emphasis to re-examined the needs of the polarized Holocaust survivors of racial persecution at the hands of the NAZI's and the relationship to the Europeans that left the Jewish People to their fate.
(REFERENCE)You misinterpret the meaning of Jewish National Home.
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'-----------------------
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
The creation of a Jewish state would be contrary to the Mandate Charter and the LoN Covenant.
Relative to the specific point emphasized by your comment: "it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State." While many pro-Arab Palestinians point directly to the 1939 White Paper the counter-Jewish State policy,
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
---------
The Partition Commission, 1938 95. In accordance with the League Council’s resolution, a technical Commission was appointed in February, 1938, under the chairmanship of Sir Johann Woodhead. The following is an extract from its terms of reference:-
“Taking into account the plan of partition outlined in Part III of the Report of the Royal Commission, but with full liberty to suggest modifications of that plan, including variation of the areas recommended for retention under British Mandate,
And taking into account any representations of the communities in Palestine and Trans-Jordan –
(i) to recommend boundaries for the proposed Arab and Jewish areas and the enclaves to be retained permanently or temporarily under British Mandate which will –
(a) afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment, with adequate security, of self-supporting Arab and Jewish States;
(b) necessitate the inclusion of the fewest possible Arabs and Arab enterprises in the Jewish area and vice versa; and
(c) enable His Majesty’s Government to carry out the Mandatory responsibilities the assumption of which is recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission, including the obligations imposed by Article 28 of the Mandate as regards the Holy Places,”
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
---------
The White Paper of May 1939
109. The policy expounded in the White Paper was bitterly condemned by all Zionist opinion. The Zionist Congress of 1939 denied its moral and legal validity, and declared that the Jewish people would not acquiesce in the reduction of its status in Palestine to that of a minority. The Arabs criticised the length of the period of transition, the provision for its possible prolongation, and the proposal that representatives of the mandatory Power should participate in framing the constitution of the independent State. nevertheless there were signs that the Arabs would, in practice, be ready to acquiesce in the application of the new policy.(COMMENT)
110. 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:
They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
“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.”
“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
I will agree that the final decision to establish self-supporting Arab and Jewish States was more a consensus; rather than unanimous agreement by the end of the League of Nations practical life. But the assertion that such establishment was outside the interpretation of the policy included in the Mandate --- is not correct. Although it was recognized that a "large Arab minority in the proposal Jewish State would prove a most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of partition." (The Woodhead Commission arrived in Palestine on the 27th April and left on the 3rd August, 1938.)
I have to disagree with the implication you suggest. The 1947 outcome, suggesting the partition, was not a unique decision; nor was it a contradiction with previous commission outcomes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Partition flopped in 1937, flopped again in 1947, and continues to flop today.P F Tinmore, et al,
When WWII ended, the Mandatory Power (UK) had not yet had the opportunity to tackle the policies set-out in the 1939 White Paper; especially with so many key Arab personalities being either directly or indirectly in support of the NAZI Regime. (This may have been --- actually --- for the better.) The tragedy the Jewish People experienced throughout Europe and Russia had created a renewed emphasis to re-examined the needs of the polarized Holocaust survivors of racial persecution at the hands of the NAZI's and the relationship to the Europeans that left the Jewish People to their fate.
(REFERENCE)You misinterpret the meaning of Jewish National Home.
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'-----------------------
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
The creation of a Jewish state would be contrary to the Mandate Charter and the LoN Covenant.
Relative to the specific point emphasized by your comment: "it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State." While many pro-Arab Palestinians point directly to the 1939 White Paper the counter-Jewish State policy,
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
---------
The Partition Commission, 1938 95. In accordance with the League Council’s resolution, a technical Commission was appointed in February, 1938, under the chairmanship of Sir Johann Woodhead. The following is an extract from its terms of reference:-
“Taking into account the plan of partition outlined in Part III of the Report of the Royal Commission, but with full liberty to suggest modifications of that plan, including variation of the areas recommended for retention under British Mandate,
And taking into account any representations of the communities in Palestine and Trans-Jordan –
(i) to recommend boundaries for the proposed Arab and Jewish areas and the enclaves to be retained permanently or temporarily under British Mandate which will –
(a) afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment, with adequate security, of self-supporting Arab and Jewish States;
(b) necessitate the inclusion of the fewest possible Arabs and Arab enterprises in the Jewish area and vice versa; and
(c) enable His Majesty’s Government to carry out the Mandatory responsibilities the assumption of which is recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission, including the obligations imposed by Article 28 of the Mandate as regards the Holy Places,”
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
---------
The White Paper of May 1939
109. The policy expounded in the White Paper was bitterly condemned by all Zionist opinion. The Zionist Congress of 1939 denied its moral and legal validity, and declared that the Jewish people would not acquiesce in the reduction of its status in Palestine to that of a minority. The Arabs criticised the length of the period of transition, the provision for its possible prolongation, and the proposal that representatives of the mandatory Power should participate in framing the constitution of the independent State. nevertheless there were signs that the Arabs would, in practice, be ready to acquiesce in the application of the new policy.(COMMENT)
110. 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:
They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
“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.”
“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
I will agree that the final decision to establish self-supporting Arab and Jewish States was more a consensus; rather than unanimous agreement by the end of the League of Nations practical life. But the assertion that such establishment was outside the interpretation of the policy included in the Mandate --- is not correct. Although it was recognized that a "large Arab minority in the proposal Jewish State would prove a most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of partition." (The Woodhead Commission arrived in Palestine on the 27th April and left on the 3rd August, 1938.)
I have to disagree with the implication you suggest. The 1947 outcome, suggesting the partition, was not a unique decision; nor was it a contradiction with previous commission outcomes.
Most Respectfully,
R
What does opposition to government policy have to do with racism?P F Tinmore, et al,
You are not applying this correctly.
Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.
(COMMENT)Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
It is about rights not about power.
First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.
No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.
Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.
Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.
The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.
No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
RFirst --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community.
The goal of BDS is to see the application of law. So maybe we can blow away some of that smoke.
No it isn't as it only applies to those states that were present at the time as the convention states.
The laws of my country make it illegal to segregate one part of society and to introduce illegal constraints on them. By hindering the free passage of individuals because of racial, national or religious difference is actually a breach of Law. So BDS as an organisation is in breach of National law, Civil law and International law and should be proscribed as a RACIST ORGANISATION
All of that blabber aside, where was it stated anywhere in the LoN Covenant, Or the Mandate Charter that they were to create a Jewish state?P F Tinmore, et al,
When WWII ended, the Mandatory Power (UK) had not yet had the opportunity to tackle the policies set-out in the 1939 White Paper; especially with so many key Arab personalities being either directly or indirectly in support of the NAZI Regime. (This may have been --- actually --- for the better.) The tragedy the Jewish People experienced throughout Europe and Russia had created a renewed emphasis to re-examined the needs of the polarized Holocaust survivors of racial persecution at the hands of the NAZI's and the relationship to the Europeans that left the Jewish People to their fate.
(REFERENCE)You misinterpret the meaning of Jewish National Home.
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'-----------------------
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
The creation of a Jewish state would be contrary to the Mandate Charter and the LoN Covenant.
Relative to the specific point emphasized by your comment: "it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State." While many pro-Arab Palestinians point directly to the 1939 White Paper the counter-Jewish State policy,
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
---------
The Partition Commission, 1938 95. In accordance with the League Council’s resolution, a technical Commission was appointed in February, 1938, under the chairmanship of Sir Johann Woodhead. The following is an extract from its terms of reference:-
(i) to recommend boundaries for the proposed Arab and Jewish areas and the enclaves to be retained permanently or temporarily under British Mandate which will –
“Taking into account the plan of partition outlined in Part III of the Report of the Royal Commission, but with full liberty to suggest modifications of that plan, including variation of the areas recommended for retention under British Mandate,
And taking into account any representations of the communities in Palestine and Trans-Jordan –
(a) afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment, with adequate security, of self-supporting Arab and Jewish States;
(b) necessitate the inclusion of the fewest possible Arabs and Arab enterprises in the Jewish area and vice versa; and
(c) enable His Majesty’s Government to carry out the Mandatory responsibilities the assumption of which is recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission, including the obligations imposed by Article 28 of the Mandate as regards the Holy Places,”The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
---------
The White Paper of May 1939
109. The policy expounded in the White Paper was bitterly condemned by all Zionist opinion. The Zionist Congress of 1939 denied its moral and legal validity, and declared that the Jewish people would not acquiesce in the reduction of its status in Palestine to that of a minority. The Arabs criticised the length of the period of transition, the provision for its possible prolongation, and the proposal that representatives of the mandatory Power should participate in framing the constitution of the independent State. nevertheless there were signs that the Arabs would, in practice, be ready to acquiesce in the application of the new policy.(COMMENT)
110. 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:
They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
“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.”
“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
I will agree that the final decision to establish self-supporting Arab and Jewish States was more a consensus; rather than unanimous agreement by the end of the League of Nations practical life. But the assertion that such establishment was outside the interpretation of the policy included in the Mandate --- is not correct. Although it was recognized that a "large Arab minority in the proposal Jewish State would prove a most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of partition." (The Woodhead Commission arrived in Palestine on the 27th April and left on the 3rd August, 1938.)
I have to disagree with the implication you suggest. The 1947 outcome, suggesting the partition, was not a unique decision; nor was it a contradiction with previous commission outcomes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Partition flopped in 1937, flopped again in 1947, and continues to flop today.P F Tinmore, et al,
When WWII ended, the Mandatory Power (UK) had not yet had the opportunity to tackle the policies set-out in the 1939 White Paper; especially with so many key Arab personalities being either directly or indirectly in support of the NAZI Regime. (This may have been --- actually --- for the better.) The tragedy the Jewish People experienced throughout Europe and Russia had created a renewed emphasis to re-examined the needs of the polarized Holocaust survivors of racial persecution at the hands of the NAZI's and the relationship to the Europeans that left the Jewish People to their fate.
(REFERENCE)You misinterpret the meaning of Jewish National Home.
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'-----------------------
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
The creation of a Jewish state would be contrary to the Mandate Charter and the LoN Covenant.
Relative to the specific point emphasized by your comment: "it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State." While many pro-Arab Palestinians point directly to the 1939 White Paper the counter-Jewish State policy,
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
---------
The Partition Commission, 1938 95. In accordance with the League Council’s resolution, a technical Commission was appointed in February, 1938, under the chairmanship of Sir Johann Woodhead. The following is an extract from its terms of reference:-
(i) to recommend boundaries for the proposed Arab and Jewish areas and the enclaves to be retained permanently or temporarily under British Mandate which will –
“Taking into account the plan of partition outlined in Part III of the Report of the Royal Commission, but with full liberty to suggest modifications of that plan, including variation of the areas recommended for retention under British Mandate,
And taking into account any representations of the communities in Palestine and Trans-Jordan –
(a) afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment, with adequate security, of self-supporting Arab and Jewish States;
(b) necessitate the inclusion of the fewest possible Arabs and Arab enterprises in the Jewish area and vice versa; and
(c) enable His Majesty’s Government to carry out the Mandatory responsibilities the assumption of which is recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission, including the obligations imposed by Article 28 of the Mandate as regards the Holy Places,”The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
---------
The White Paper of May 1939
109. The policy expounded in the White Paper was bitterly condemned by all Zionist opinion. The Zionist Congress of 1939 denied its moral and legal validity, and declared that the Jewish people would not acquiesce in the reduction of its status in Palestine to that of a minority. The Arabs criticised the length of the period of transition, the provision for its possible prolongation, and the proposal that representatives of the mandatory Power should participate in framing the constitution of the independent State. nevertheless there were signs that the Arabs would, in practice, be ready to acquiesce in the application of the new policy.(COMMENT)
110. 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:
They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
“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.”
“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
I will agree that the final decision to establish self-supporting Arab and Jewish States was more a consensus; rather than unanimous agreement by the end of the League of Nations practical life. But the assertion that such establishment was outside the interpretation of the policy included in the Mandate --- is not correct. Although it was recognized that a "large Arab minority in the proposal Jewish State would prove a most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of partition." (The Woodhead Commission arrived in Palestine on the 27th April and left on the 3rd August, 1938.)
I have to disagree with the implication you suggest. The 1947 outcome, suggesting the partition, was not a unique decision; nor was it a contradiction with previous commission outcomes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Why do we keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
(COMMENT)All of that blabber aside, where was it stated anywhere in the LoN Covenant, Or the Mandate Charter that they were to create a Jewish state?
I don't know. Palistanians just have to be resettled and that's it, of course. If the "international community" facilitates the resettlement of the ME and not-so-ME migrants, who aren't even syrian, then resettling a bunch of palistanians won't be a problem either, of course.Why do we keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
