Who are the Israelis?

[P F Tinmore]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

 

[Hollie]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

Aww. That teenage bravado is so cute.

Tell us again how many wars were launched by Islamists intending to push Israelis into the sea? Tell us again how many times Arabs suffered humiliating defeats?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

Aww. That teenage bravado is so cute.

Tell us again how many wars were launched by Islamists intending to push Israelis into the sea? Tell us again how many times Arabs suffered humiliating defeats?

Oh really, when did the Palestinians surrender?

 

[Hollie]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

Aww. That teenage bravado is so cute.

Tell us again how many wars were launched by Islamists intending to push Israelis into the sea? Tell us again how many times Arabs suffered humiliating defeats?

Oh really, when did the Palestinians surrender?

I never used the term.

I noted the continuing, serial, humiliating defeats inflicted on the Arab-Moslem armies and the Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

Aww. That teenage bravado is so cute.

Tell us again how many wars were launched by Islamists intending to push Israelis into the sea? Tell us again how many times Arabs suffered humiliating defeats?

Oh really, when did the Palestinians surrender?

I never used the term.

I noted the continuing, serial, humiliating defeats inflicted on the Arab-Moslem armies and the Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.

You are prematurely claiming victory.

 

[Hollie]

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

Aww. That teenage bravado is so cute.

Tell us again how many wars were launched by Islamists intending to push Israelis into the sea? Tell us again how many times Arabs suffered humiliating defeats?

Oh really, when did the Palestinians surrender?

I never used the term.

I noted the continuing, serial, humiliating defeats inflicted on the Arab-Moslem armies and the Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.

You are prematurely claiming victory.

You're making excuses for Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude.

You obviously missed it but not a one of the Arab-Moslem states in the Islamist Middle East is going to wage war with israel on behalf of the Islamic terrorist franchises occupying Gaza'istan or Fatah'istan. The "Pal'istanians" are useful idiots as a vehicle for propaganda purposes by the more excitable of the turbaned crowd but there's not a single muhammedan nation that doesn't keep them at the long end of a stick understanding that Pal'istanians are a political and financial liability.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For the purposes of our discussion here, the terms "victory" and "defeat" of subjective political terms. They have no true universally accepted definition. When used in a goals, objectives or strategy document, they have to be defined specific to that topic, and not in generalities. Example: Part i, Page #3 --- National Strategy for Victory in Iraq 2005.

I noted the continuing, serial, humiliating defeats inflicted on the Arab-Moslem armies and the Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.

You are prematurely claiming victory.

(COMMENT)

However, in layman's terms, if the objective to the conflict is recognition, then to achieve "recognition" is to have a decisive political victory.

If, on the other hand, the objective is survival and/or retention of independence, then the encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army would be considered by the layman to be an example of a decisive military victory.

Sometimes the scope and nature of an undefined victory is not immediately understood or appreciated. The attack by Arab Forces of 1948 was much more of a victory the Israelis, than first realized. It set the conditions for Israel to be recognized as independent, and actually adjusted the Israeli borders as a result of Israeli forces securing overrun Arab Territory in the wake of the retreating Arab Forces attempting to escape destruction.

All the forces volunteering for the Palestinians (ALA - HWA) were destroyed or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. While the true agenda of the Jordanians and Egyptians were made known, and achieved significant progress towards those goals. No single or combined element of Arab powers has been able to reacquire territory lost to Israel any hasty retreat of Arab Forces since the 1948 .

It should be noticed that, at no time subsequent to the illegal intervention by Arab Forces in 1948, has Israel lost a major confrontation with any single or combined element of the Arab League. That, in layman's terms is a decisive military victory that borders on a political victory, given the establishment of Peace Treaties between Israel and the two most successful Arab States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For the purposes of our discussion here, the terms "victory" and "defeat" of subjective political terms. They have no true universally accepted definition. When used in a goals, objectives or strategy document, they have to be defined specific to that topic, and not in generalities. Example: Part i, Page #3 --- National Strategy for Victory in Iraq 2005.

I noted the continuing, serial, humiliating defeats inflicted on the Arab-Moslem armies and the Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.

You are prematurely claiming victory.

(COMMENT)

However, in layman's terms, if the objective to the conflict is recognition, then to achieve "recognition" is to have a decisive political victory.

If, on the other hand, the objective is survival and/or retention of independence, then the encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army would be considered by the layman to be an example of a decisive military victory.

Sometimes the scope and nature of an undefined victory is not immediately understood or appreciated. The attack by Arab Forces of 1948 was much more of a victory the Israelis, than first realized. It set the conditions for Israel to be recognized as independent, and actually adjusted the Israeli borders as a result of Israeli forces securing overrun Arab Territory in the wake of the retreating Arab Forces attempting to escape destruction.

All the forces volunteering for the Palestinians (ALA - HWA) were destroyed or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. While the true agenda of the Jordanians and Egyptians were made known, and achieved significant progress towards those goals. No single or combined element of Arab powers has been able to reacquire territory lost to Israel any hasty retreat of Arab Forces since the 1948 .

It should be noticed that, at no time subsequent to the illegal intervention by Arab Forces in 1948, has Israel lost a major confrontation with any single or combined element of the Arab League. That, in layman's terms is a decisive military victory that borders on a political victory, given the establishment of Peace Treaties between Israel and the two most successful Arab States.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?

 

[Phoenall]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

Islamonazi propaganda, LIES and talking points that have no basis in truth.

Who is it again that throws children of the roofs of high buildings in gaza ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For the purposes of our discussion here, the terms "victory" and "defeat" of subjective political terms. They have no true universally accepted definition. When used in a goals, objectives or strategy document, they have to be defined specific to that topic, and not in generalities. Example: Part i, Page #3 --- National Strategy for Victory in Iraq 2005.

I noted the continuing, serial, humiliating defeats inflicted on the Arab-Moslem armies and the Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.

You are prematurely claiming victory.

(COMMENT)

However, in layman's terms, if the objective to the conflict is recognition, then to achieve "recognition" is to have a decisive political victory.

If, on the other hand, the objective is survival and/or retention of independence, then the encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army would be considered by the layman to be an example of a decisive military victory.

Sometimes the scope and nature of an undefined victory is not immediately understood or appreciated. The attack by Arab Forces of 1948 was much more of a victory the Israelis, than first realized. It set the conditions for Israel to be recognized as independent, and actually adjusted the Israeli borders as a result of Israeli forces securing overrun Arab Territory in the wake of the retreating Arab Forces attempting to escape destruction.

All the forces volunteering for the Palestinians (ALA - HWA) were destroyed or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. While the true agenda of the Jordanians and Egyptians were made known, and achieved significant progress towards those goals. No single or combined element of Arab powers has been able to reacquire territory lost to Israel any hasty retreat of Arab Forces since the 1948 .

It should be noticed that, at no time subsequent to the illegal intervention by Arab Forces in 1948, has Israel lost a major confrontation with any single or combined element of the Arab League. That, in layman's terms is a decisive military victory that borders on a political victory, given the establishment of Peace Treaties between Israel and the two most successful Arab States.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?

Whoever has the power to do so, usually the victors or the negotiators of the surrender terms.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

Only your opinion and that is about as worthless as a ashtray on a motorbike

 

[Phoenall]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

Aww. That teenage bravado is so cute.

Tell us again how many wars were launched by Islamists intending to push Israelis into the sea? Tell us again how many times Arabs suffered humiliating defeats?

Oh really, when did the Palestinians surrender?

All the time being the cowards they are. This is why the fight from behind womens skirts, use children as human shields and hide in deep holes when the nasty IDF girls come knocking

 

[Phoenall]

However, it was your muhammedan heroes who suffered humiliated defeats with the various wars they launched toward Israel.

You're perpetual losers. How's that workin' out for ya'?

Does not change the fact that Israel is a shit state full of assholes.

Just more fuel for BDS.

Aww. That teenage bravado is so cute.

Tell us again how many wars were launched by Islamists intending to push Israelis into the sea? Tell us again how many times Arabs suffered humiliating defeats?

Oh really, when did the Palestinians surrender?

I never used the term.

I noted the continuing, serial, humiliating defeats inflicted on the Arab-Moslem armies and the Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.

You are prematurely claiming victory.

No as the UN has had to step in and call a halt to the many wars the Palestinians have started to stop them from being massacred. That is a sign of the Palestinians losing the many wars they have started, and so it means that the Jews won them.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have the question wrong.

So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?

(COMMENT)

To be relevant, the question should be:

• Who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies?"
​

The relevant understanding comes not from merely reading some wording you have stumbled upon, but in actually being able to understand it both then (late 1940's) and now (more than seven decades after the UN Charter). In coming to this deeper understanding, you must reject the patrimonial understanding of territory (as a kind of property) that and moving on in favor of understanding the legitimate political authority --- one in the framework of "popular sovereignty." AND --- in doing so, answer two 21st Century questions: the question of

• What territory is , or what territorial rights involve? and
• What are the conditions under which some some entity has territorial rights?
​

But in answering these questions, one must be prepared to deal with the dissenting antagonists which fail to accept the contemporary theory as applied today.

√ 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.

√ On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

In the establishment of a relatively new state (Israel), political and terrorist opposition seeking to oppose the establishment of the Jewish National Home tend to seek the source of its legitimacy within the framework of international law either in the territorialist conception, whereby it claims that the Arab Palestinians are somehow entitled to come to independence within a particular and accepted territorial that they have determined is their sovereign territory, as opposed to the true holder of the rights and title to the territory --- with the authority to determine the future of that being in the hands of Allied Powers. The Jewish Immigrants, at the encouragement of the Allied Powers, and as a consequence of the exercise of self-determination, acting cooperatively with the Allied Powers, focused upon a central theme behind the Mandate --- that being the .
The principle of self-determination has risen in importance to become one of the key objectives: "the reconstituting their national home in that country."

In addressing these issues of territory, one must consider the political and legal concepts of modern international law; as well as, the ability to distinguish between the legal right to self-determination (Israel) versus the mere political expression of the doctrine (Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have the question wrong.

So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?

(COMMENT)

To be relevant, the question should be:

• Who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies?"
​

The relevant understanding comes not from merely reading some wording you have stumbled upon, but in actually being able to understand it both then (late 1940's) and now (more than seven decades after the UN Charter). In coming to this deeper understanding, you must reject the patrimonial understanding of territory (as a kind of property) that and moving on in favor of understanding the legitimate political authority --- one in the framework of "popular sovereignty." AND --- in doing so, answer two 21st Century questions: the question of

• What territory is , or what territorial rights involve? and
• What are the conditions under which some some entity has territorial rights?
​

But in answering these questions, one must be prepared to deal with the dissenting antagonists which fail to accept the contemporary theory as applied today.

√ 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.

√ On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

In the establishment of a relatively new state (Israel), political and terrorist opposition seeking to oppose the establishment of the Jewish National Home tend to seek the source of its legitimacy within the framework of international law either in the territorialist conception, whereby it claims that the Arab Palestinians are somehow entitled to come to independence within a particular and accepted territorial that they have determined is their sovereign territory, as opposed to the true holder of the rights and title to the territory --- with the authority to determine the future of that being in the hands of Allied Powers. The Jewish Immigrants, at the encouragement of the Allied Powers, and as a consequence of the exercise of self-determination, acting cooperatively with the Allied Powers, focused upon a central theme behind the Mandate --- that being the .
The principle of self-determination has risen in importance to become one of the key objectives: "the reconstituting their national home in that country."

In addressing these issues of territory, one must consider the political and legal concepts of modern international law; as well as, the ability to distinguish between the legal right to self-determination (Israel) versus the mere political expression of the doctrine (Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

The terrorists were the Jews as the British reported.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks........British officials warned the colonial secretary, George Hall: "The Jewish public … endorsed the attitude of its leaders that terrorism is a natural consequence of the general policy of His Majesty's Government", including turning away ships carrying "illegal" Jewish immigrants.....After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have the question wrong.

So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?

(COMMENT)

To be relevant, the question should be:

• Who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies?"
​

The relevant understanding comes not from merely reading some wording you have stumbled upon, but in actually being able to understand it both then (late 1940's) and now (more than seven decades after the UN Charter). In coming to this deeper understanding, you must reject the patrimonial understanding of territory (as a kind of property) that and moving on in favor of understanding the legitimate political authority --- one in the framework of "popular sovereignty." AND --- in doing so, answer two 21st Century questions: the question of

• What territory is , or what territorial rights involve? and
• What are the conditions under which some some entity has territorial rights?
​

But in answering these questions, one must be prepared to deal with the dissenting antagonists which fail to accept the contemporary theory as applied today.

√ 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.

√ On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

In the establishment of a relatively new state (Israel), political and terrorist opposition seeking to oppose the establishment of the Jewish National Home tend to seek the source of its legitimacy within the framework of international law either in the territorialist conception, whereby it claims that the Arab Palestinians are somehow entitled to come to independence within a particular and accepted territorial that they have determined is their sovereign territory, as opposed to the true holder of the rights and title to the territory --- with the authority to determine the future of that being in the hands of Allied Powers. The Jewish Immigrants, at the encouragement of the Allied Powers, and as a consequence of the exercise of self-determination, acting cooperatively with the Allied Powers, focused upon a central theme behind the Mandate --- that being the .
The principle of self-determination has risen in importance to become one of the key objectives: "the reconstituting their national home in that country."

In addressing these issues of territory, one must consider the political and legal concepts of modern international law; as well as, the ability to distinguish between the legal right to self-determination (Israel) versus the mere political expression of the doctrine (Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

The terrorists were the Jews as the British reported.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks........British officials warned the colonial secretary, George Hall: "The Jewish public … endorsed the attitude of its leaders that terrorism is a natural consequence of the general policy of His Majesty's Government", including turning away ships carrying "illegal" Jewish immigrants.....After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

The Arab colonial project was proceeding at that time.

The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library


A Population Boom
As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.

 

[montelatici]

Jewish Virtual Library, it must be true. You are such a tool.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is not new information.

The terrorists were the Jews as the British reported.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks........British officials warned the colonial secretary, George Hall: "The Jewish public … endorsed the attitude of its leaders that terrorism is a natural consequence of the general policy of His Majesty's Government", including turning away ships carrying "illegal" Jewish immigrants.....After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

(REFERENCE)

Jewish illegal immigration: summaries of information about the illegal movement to Palestine of Jews from...​

The Security Service: Subject (SF series) Files. Jewish illegal immigration: summaries of information about the illegal movement to Palestine of Jews from post-war Europe (file heavily weeded in the 1950's).

Held by: The National Archives - Security Service
Date: 1946 - 1947
Reference: KV 3/56

(KV 3/40-56)

Palestine

(KV 3/41 and KV 3/56)

KV 3/41 deals with security problems in the British administered mandate of Palestine after the Second World War caused by illegal Jewish immigration, Jewish terrorism and Arab activities from 1946 to 1948. It is one of very few Security Service files on Palestine in this period to survive. The file includes two surveys of the activities of Zionist extremists in the UK, in 1946 and 1948, and contains notes for the Director General's meeting with Prime Minister Atlee in August 1946 on threatened Jewish terrorism (including warnings of attacks against the detention centres in Cyprus and intelligence that five cells were to be set up in London by Irgun and Stern working along IRA lines). The file does not cover the 1946 Irgun bomb attack on the British Embassy in Rome. There are also scripts for a number of lectures on the subject, a note on the security situation in the Middle East prepared for the Chief of Imperial General Staff (Montgomery) in March 1947, and a note on the work of the Middle East section of the Security Service (which controlled SIME).

Reconstituted file KV 3/56 (which was heavily weeded in the 1950s) deals with the general question of Jewish immigration from Europe into the British controlled mandate of Palestine, and now consists mainly of summaries of developments in 1946 and 1947, including some well-known cases and personalities, British operations, immigration quotas, reports on emigration from various Western European countries, and a list of businesses known to be or suspected of being involved in illegal immigration activity. There is also a copy of the Illegal Immigration Review no 2 (16 June to 15 July 1947), a summary of developments in that month.
​

(COMMENT)

Periodically, these reports are over dramatized and exploited by the pro-Arab Palestinians. And these particular Jewish groups --- being focused upon, had long since demobilized after Independence.

Having said that, there are very few terrorist organizations affiliated with Middle East radicalized Islamic Jihadist that have more recent and active history of terrorist actions than that of the Arab Palestinians.

Yes, the Jewish had their asymmetric terrorist --- just as many other cultures. But most cultures evolve and advance in positive direction. Radical Islamic activities do not have a constant positive evolution.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have the question wrong.

So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?

(COMMENT)

To be relevant, the question should be:

• Who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies?"
​

The relevant understanding comes not from merely reading some wording you have stumbled upon, but in actually being able to understand it both then (late 1940's) and now (more than seven decades after the UN Charter). In coming to this deeper understanding, you must reject the patrimonial understanding of territory (as a kind of property) that and moving on in favor of understanding the legitimate political authority --- one in the framework of "popular sovereignty." AND --- in doing so, answer two 21st Century questions: the question of

• What territory is , or what territorial rights involve? and
• What are the conditions under which some some entity has territorial rights?
​

But in answering these questions, one must be prepared to deal with the dissenting antagonists which fail to accept the contemporary theory as applied today.

√ 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.

√ On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

In the establishment of a relatively new state (Israel), political and terrorist opposition seeking to oppose the establishment of the Jewish National Home tend to seek the source of its legitimacy within the framework of international law either in the territorialist conception, whereby it claims that the Arab Palestinians are somehow entitled to come to independence within a particular and accepted territorial that they have determined is their sovereign territory, as opposed to the true holder of the rights and title to the territory --- with the authority to determine the future of that being in the hands of Allied Powers. The Jewish Immigrants, at the encouragement of the Allied Powers, and as a consequence of the exercise of self-determination, acting cooperatively with the Allied Powers, focused upon a central theme behind the Mandate --- that being the .
The principle of self-determination has risen in importance to become one of the key objectives: "the reconstituting their national home in that country."

In addressing these issues of territory, one must consider the political and legal concepts of modern international law; as well as, the ability to distinguish between the legal right to self-determination (Israel) versus the mere political expression of the doctrine (Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

The Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,​

What was the Mandate's job? Administration.

What was it to administer? The territory of Palestine.

Thank you.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have the question wrong.

So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?

(COMMENT)

To be relevant, the question should be:

• Who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies?"
​

The relevant understanding comes not from merely reading some wording you have stumbled upon, but in actually being able to understand it both then (late 1940's) and now (more than seven decades after the UN Charter). In coming to this deeper understanding, you must reject the patrimonial understanding of territory (as a kind of property) that and moving on in favor of understanding the legitimate political authority --- one in the framework of "popular sovereignty." AND --- in doing so, answer two 21st Century questions: the question of

• What territory is , or what territorial rights involve? and
• What are the conditions under which some some entity has territorial rights?
​

But in answering these questions, one must be prepared to deal with the dissenting antagonists which fail to accept the contemporary theory as applied today.

√ 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.

√ On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

In the establishment of a relatively new state (Israel), political and terrorist opposition seeking to oppose the establishment of the Jewish National Home tend to seek the source of its legitimacy within the framework of international law either in the territorialist conception, whereby it claims that the Arab Palestinians are somehow entitled to come to independence within a particular and accepted territorial that they have determined is their sovereign territory, as opposed to the true holder of the rights and title to the territory --- with the authority to determine the future of that being in the hands of Allied Powers. The Jewish Immigrants, at the encouragement of the Allied Powers, and as a consequence of the exercise of self-determination, acting cooperatively with the Allied Powers, focused upon a central theme behind the Mandate --- that being the .
The principle of self-determination has risen in importance to become one of the key objectives: "the reconstituting their national home in that country."

In addressing these issues of territory, one must consider the political and legal concepts of modern international law; as well as, the ability to distinguish between the legal right to self-determination (Israel) versus the mere political expression of the doctrine (Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

The terrorists were the Jews as the British reported.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks........British officials warned the colonial secretary, George Hall: "The Jewish public … endorsed the attitude of its leaders that terrorism is a natural consequence of the general policy of His Majesty's Government", including turning away ships carrying "illegal" Jewish immigrants.....After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

OFF TOPIC IRRELEVANCE AGAIN. want to try a new tune


Or read your cut and paste again without manipulating it. The British knew that the terrorists were the arab muslims as your other overused link showed, and the Jews were fighting against the mass murder of Jews by British troops breaching the terms on the Mandate.