Jewish Virtual Library, it must be true. You are such a tool.
Strange how it is when you use it and it supports your POV (but only after being manipulated )
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jewish Virtual Library, it must be true. You are such a tool.
P F Tinmore, et al,
I think you have the question wrong.
(COMMENT)So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?
To be relevant, the question should be:
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
• Who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies?"
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.
• What territory is , or what territorial rights involve? and
• What are the conditions under which some some entity has territorial rights?
√ 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,
RThe 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.
Popular sovereignty is at the center of contemporary international law. It is not about power, money, or government. It is about the people. States only have rights as the extension of the people. Governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.P F Tinmore, et al,
I think you have the question wrong.
(COMMENT)So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?
To be relevant, the question should be:
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
• Who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies?"
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.
• What territory is , or what territorial rights involve? and
• What are the conditions under which some some entity has territorial rights?
√ 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
(COMMENT)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.
Popular sovereignty is at the center of contemporary international law. It is not about power, money, or government. It is about the people. States only have rights as the extension of the people. Governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.(COMMENT)So, who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, another country?
To be relevant, the question should be:
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
• Who has the authority to "adjust" the borders of, or within, "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies?"
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.
• What territory is , or what territorial rights involve? and
• What are the conditions under which some some entity has territorial rights?
[/QUOTE]√ 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
(COMMENT)Popular sovereignty is at the center of contemporary international law. It is not about power, money, or government. It is about the people. States only have rights as the extension of the people. Governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.
(COMMENT)Sovereignty lies in the people of the place. All peoples have universal, inalienable rights.
- The right to self determination without external interference.
- The right to independence and sovereignty.
- The right to territorial integrity.
(COMMENT)This is not new. The Treaty of Lausanne said that the people of the place will be the citizens of their respective newly created successor states. The people were the primary concern in the LoN Covenant. They used terms like inhabitants, indigenous, and native. The Palestinian Citizenship Order gave citizenship to the people of the place. Resolution 181 stated that the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that would become the Jewish state would be citizens of the Jewish state. They are the people of that place albeit under new governance. The right to return guarantees the people of the place their right to their place.
WOW, a whole page of external interference.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are attempting to apply contemporary logic to a post-Conflict partitioning of the sovereignty lost in war. It simply did not workout that way.
(COMMENT)Popular sovereignty is at the center of contemporary international law. It is not about power, money, or government. It is about the people. States only have rights as the extension of the people. Governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.
In the context of international law of western origin, acquisition of territories means either:
Article 16 of the Treaty is an example of a change in the holder of territory; wherein the Title and Rights were transferred to the Allied Powers.
• The assertion of a new sovereignty where there was none hitherto,
• A sovereignty modified by a change in the holder of the territory..
The legitimacy of a Government is based on its ability to stand on its own and defend its interest. Failing to maintain "effective control" of the territory was the first step in changing sovereignty.
Articles 34 and 35 of the Berlin Act introduces the doctrine of the “spheres of influence.” Any European country claiming possession of African coastline had to inform the other nations of its intentions. Otherwise, the claim would not be recognized. The "sphere of influence" also granted the claimant possession of the hinterlands. Article 35 of the Berlin Act addressed the occupation of Africa by introducing the doctrine of "effective occupation." This doctrine {1885 (as revised in 1919) - some 40 years before the San Remo Convention in which the Allied Powers agreed on the Mandate for Palestine] required the occupying nation to prove that it had the ability to protect existing interests. While popular support of the people was still important, it was NOT a prerequisite for the establishment of change in sovereignty. On 10 September 1919, the Allied Powers agreed to amend the Berlin Act:
Whereas the General Act of the African Conference, signed at Berlin on February 26, 1885, was primarily intended to demonstrate
the agreement of the Powers with regard to the general principles which should guide their commercial and civilising action in the
little known or inadequately organised regions of a continent where slavery and the slave trade still flourished ; and
Whereas by the Brussels Declaration of July 2, 1890, it was found necessary to modify for a provisional period of fifteen years
the system of free imports established for twenty years by Article 4 of the said Act, and since that date no agreement has been entered into, notwithstanding the provisions of the said Act and Declaration ; and
Whereas the territories in question are now under the control of recognised authorities, are provided with administrative institutions
suitable to the local conditions, and the evolution of the native populations continues to make progress ;
Wishing to ensure by arrangements suitable to modern requirements the application of the general principles of civilisation established by the Acts of Berlin and Brussels,
Yes, it is important that advanced civilizations protect and extend guidance, did not yet consider the inhabitants as the source of any authority, legitimacy or power. In that time period the general thoughts on the matter were that:
All the powers exercising sovereign rights or influence in the aforesaid territories bind themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being and to help in suppressing slavery, and especially the Slave Trade. They shall, without distinction of creed or nation, protect and favor all religious, scientific, or charitable institutions and undertakings created and organized for the above ends, or which aim at instructing the natives and bringing home to them the blessings of civilization.
This was both the language and the intent of the 1885 Berlin Act (Amended 1919) used in the League of Nations Covenant.
(COMMENT)Sovereignty lies in the people of the place. All peoples have universal, inalienable rights.
- The right to self determination without external interference.
- The right to independence and sovereignty.
- The right to territorial integrity.
First, the idea that the citizenship clause makes any difference pertaining to the territorial control and sovereignty of the territories under Mandate, is simply wrong. It was merely a vehicle used to extend citizenship criteria over the territory until such time as the provisional recognition could stand alone. The successor government was the government extended by the Mandatory over the territory, and not some authority derived from the inhabitants.
(COMMENT)This is not new. The Treaty of Lausanne said that the people of the place will be the citizens of their respective newly created successor states. The people were the primary concern in the LoN Covenant. They used terms like inhabitants, indigenous, and native. The Palestinian Citizenship Order gave citizenship to the people of the place. Resolution 181 stated that the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that would become the Jewish state would be citizens of the Jewish state. They are the people of that place albeit under new governance. The right to return guarantees the people of the place their right to their place.
The "people" were a concern, but not in the fashion in which you imply. First, the League of nations was the authority for the Mandate. As such, the League of Nations, when specifically addressing the inhabitants, did so in the Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine, specifically directed that the civil and religious rights were to be protected. The League of Nations also directed immigration priorities for the Jewish Immigrants in the furtherance of establishing a Jewish National Home.
There was no clause, treaty, declaration or agreement that specifically promised sovereignty to a specific inhabitant in the territorial region. Without the effective control of territory, the right of territorial integrity means nothing. When the territory is zero (none), then the right of zero integrity means nothing.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)WOW, a whole page of external interference.
So much misleading information. I don't know where to start.P F Tinmore, et al,
That is funny!
(COMMENT)WOW, a whole page of external interference.
When was "external interference" made an international law or legal issue?
The 1948 War of Independence fought over the Arab League objection to the right of self-determination exercised by the Jewish People. It was an example of external interference exhibited through the use of force by outside their sovereign territory.
• acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, [Article 1(1)]
• principle of equal rights and self-determination, [Article 1(2)]
• settle disputes by peaceful means [Article 2(3)]
• use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state [Article 2(4)]
• the maintenance of international peace and security. [Article 2(6)]
• intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction [Article 2(7)]
Within hours, after the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel, military elements of five Arab League Nations, and two independent irregular brigades of Palestinian Volunteers, mobilized and launch a coordinated attack on Israel; outside the individual sovereignty of their nations.
In 1949 Armistice Agreements were arranged. The two independent irregular brigades of Palestinian Volunteers were rendered combat ineffective. The States of Egypt and Jordan established Peace Treaties with Israel and agreed on permanent international borders. Lebanon and Syria are still in a state of war with Israel; but under a ceasefire arranged by the Armistice.
Since that time, the Arab Palestinians have declared under solemn oath to continue the Jihad, using the threat of of terrorism and use of force to circumvent the original recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)So much misleading information. I don't know where to start.That is funny!
(COMMENT)WOW, a whole page of external interference.
When was "external interference" made an international law or legal issue?
The 1948 War of Independence fought over the Arab League objection to the right of self-determination exercised by the Jewish People. It was an example of external interference exhibited through the use of force by outside their sovereign territory.
• acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, [Article 1(1)]
• principle of equal rights and self-determination, [Article 1(2)]
• settle disputes by peaceful means [Article 2(3)]
• use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state [Article 2(4)]
• the maintenance of international peace and security. [Article 2(6)]
• intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction [Article 2(7)]
Within hours, after the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel, military elements of five Arab League Nations, and two independent irregular brigades of Palestinian Volunteers, mobilized and launch a coordinated attack on Israel; outside the individual sovereignty of their nations.
In 1949 Armistice Agreements were arranged. The two independent irregular brigades of Palestinian Volunteers were rendered combat ineffective. The States of Egypt and Jordan established Peace Treaties with Israel and agreed on permanent international borders. Lebanon and Syria are still in a state of war with Israel; but under a ceasefire arranged by the Armistice.
Since that time, the Arab Palestinians have declared under solemn oath to continue the Jihad, using the threat of of terrorism and use of force to circumvent the original recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.
Most Respectfully,
R
What part of all this refutes my post?
External assistance is not external interference.P F Tinmore, et al,
All of it refutes your postings in one fashion of the other.
(COMMENT)So much misleading information. I don't know where to start.That is funny!
(COMMENT)WOW, a whole page of external interference.
When was "external interference" made an international law or legal issue?
The 1948 War of Independence fought over the Arab League objection to the right of self-determination exercised by the Jewish People. It was an example of external interference exhibited through the use of force by outside their sovereign territory.
• acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, [Article 1(1)]
• principle of equal rights and self-determination, [Article 1(2)]
• settle disputes by peaceful means [Article 2(3)]
• use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state [Article 2(4)]
• the maintenance of international peace and security. [Article 2(6)]
• intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction [Article 2(7)]
Within hours, after the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel, military elements of five Arab League Nations, and two independent irregular brigades of Palestinian Volunteers, mobilized and launch a coordinated attack on Israel; outside the individual sovereignty of their nations.
In 1949 Armistice Agreements were arranged. The two independent irregular brigades of Palestinian Volunteers were rendered combat ineffective. The States of Egypt and Jordan established Peace Treaties with Israel and agreed on permanent international borders. Lebanon and Syria are still in a state of war with Israel; but under a ceasefire arranged by the Armistice.
Since that time, the Arab Palestinians have declared under solemn oath to continue the Jihad, using the threat of of terrorism and use of force to circumvent the original recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.
Most Respectfully,
R
What part of all this refutes my post?
But specifically, you introduced "external interference" in Posting #328.
My counter is that the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League were the guilty parties in terms of "external interference" if there was such a prohibition in 1948.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)External assistance is not external interference.
P F Tinmore, et al,
There is no such political position as "external assistance." Without regard to what the Arab League claims, the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (either the previous government or the successor government) DID NOT request assistance.
The attack by the Arab League Forces was a coordinated attack against a nation of people exercising their "right to self-determination" in accordance with the UN adopted "Step Preparatory to Independence."
The Arab League used the excuse of assistance and defense as a deception under the color of law (misfeasance and malfeasance) in an attempt, in using hostile intervention as a method, to obstruct the completion of the UN preparatory steps to independence and to prevent the effective right of self-determination.
(COMMENT)External assistance is not external interference.
What is the Crime of Aggression?
The Nuremburg Judgement of 1947 outlined the act of "aggression as:
This is generally prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, as an act that otherwise normally falls under the principles of jus ad bellum — that is, the branch of international law governing the conditions under which States may legally resort to war. In this case, the defenders of the right to self-determination under the Steps Preparatory to Independence" have the right to use force under Article 51 of the UN Charter:
• “the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a Mem- 10 her of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. "
Israel defending against Arab aggressors.
Now everyone understands that the Hostile Arab Palestinians have been attempting in every way possible to reverse the role and provoke Israel into the role of the aggressor. They have created quite a history to a pattern of criminal behaviors calculated to give rise to an Israeli military response.
Again, let me make this as clear as can be made. It cannot be a situation of "external assistance" when:
• The UNPC, as the successor government, did not ask for assistance.
• The Arab League already planned to intervene illegally, and that the Arab Higher Committee already made a solemn oath to Jihad even before the implementation process began.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
There is no such political position as "external assistance." Without regard to what the Arab League claims, the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (either the previous government or the successor government) DID NOT request assistance.
The attack by the Arab League Forces was a coordinated attack against a nation of people exercising their "right to self-determination" in accordance with the UN adopted "Step Preparatory to Independence."
The Arab League used the excuse of assistance and defense as a deception under the color of law (misfeasance and malfeasance) in an attempt, in using hostile intervention as a method, to obstruct the completion of the UN preparatory steps to independence and to prevent the effective right of self-determination.
(COMMENT)External assistance is not external interference.
What is the Crime of Aggression?
The Nuremburg Judgement of 1947 outlined the act of "aggression as:
This is generally prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, as an act that otherwise normally falls under the principles of jus ad bellum — that is, the branch of international law governing the conditions under which States may legally resort to war. In this case, the defenders of the right to self-determination under the Steps Preparatory to Independence" have the right to use force under Article 51 of the UN Charter:
• “the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a Mem- 10 her of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. "
Israel defending against Arab aggressors.
Now everyone understands that the Hostile Arab Palestinians have been attempting in every way possible to reverse the role and provoke Israel into the role of the aggressor. They have created quite a history to a pattern of criminal behaviors calculated to give rise to an Israeli military response.
Again, let me make this as clear as can be made. It cannot be a situation of "external assistance" when:
• The UNPC, as the successor government, did not ask for assistance.
• The Arab League already planned to intervene illegally, and that the Arab Higher Committee already made a solemn oath to Jihad even before the implementation process began.
Most Respectfully,
R
Where do you get the opinion that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves?P F Tinmore, et al,
There is no such political position as "external assistance." Without regard to what the Arab League claims, the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (either the previous government or the successor government) DID NOT request assistance.
The attack by the Arab League Forces was a coordinated attack against a nation of people exercising their "right to self-determination" in accordance with the UN adopted "Step Preparatory to Independence."
The Arab League used the excuse of assistance and defense as a deception under the color of law (misfeasance and malfeasance) in an attempt, in using hostile intervention as a method, to obstruct the completion of the UN preparatory steps to independence and to prevent the effective right of self-determination.
(COMMENT)External assistance is not external interference.
What is the Crime of Aggression?
The Nuremburg Judgement of 1947 outlined the act of "aggression as:
This is generally prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, as an act that otherwise normally falls under the principles of jus ad bellum — that is, the branch of international law governing the conditions under which States may legally resort to war. In this case, the defenders of the right to self-determination under the Steps Preparatory to Independence" have the right to use force under Article 51 of the UN Charter:
• “the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a Mem- 10 her of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. "
Israel defending against Arab aggressors.
Now everyone understands that the Hostile Arab Palestinians have been attempting in every way possible to reverse the role and provoke Israel into the role of the aggressor. They have created quite a history to a pattern of criminal behaviors calculated to give rise to an Israeli military response.
Again, let me make this as clear as can be made. It cannot be a situation of "external assistance" when:
• The UNPC, as the successor government, did not ask for assistance.
• The Arab League already planned to intervene illegally, and that the Arab Higher Committee already made a solemn oath to Jihad even before the implementation process began.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Do you mean the foreign colonists who were attacking and expelling the native population?RoccoR said:• The attack by the Arab League Forces was a coordinated attack against a nation of people exercising their "right to self-determination" in accordance with the UN adopted "Step Preparatory to Independence."
(COMMENT)What about Russia in Syria or France in our own revolutionary war?
(COMMENT)Where do you get the opinion that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves?
Link?
P F Tinmore, et al,
One of the many traits of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) is that they (more often than not) are characterized by a series of perceptions in history (images if you will - inherited generationally) that differ from objective reality. The information the HoAP gather is mentally organized, re-assessed, and reinterpreted in order to represent an heritage of victimization in which they carry absolutely no fault in the adverse outcome.
Not once did I say that "Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" --- as you imply. It is the difficult logic to assume that the HoAP can incite a conflict and then claim to be a victim of the injuries incurred.
(COMMENT)Do you mean the foreign colonists who were attacking and expelling the native population?RoccoR said:• The attack by the Arab League Forces was a coordinated attack against a nation of people exercising their "right to self-determination" in accordance with the UN adopted "Step Preparatory to Independence."
The Reality:
The adoption of UN Resolution 181(II) in November 1947 sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine (a low intensity civil war). Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of HoAP attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) composed mostly of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces.
√ First, the objective realities, a matter of historical record are:
• The Mandatory was responsible for setting conditions would secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
• The Mandatory was responsible for the development of self-governing institutions.
• The Mandatory was directed to facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency, all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the JNH.
• UN adopted Resolution 181(II).
• UN Resolution 181(II) contained the "Steps Preparatory for Independence."
• The Jewish people have the same "right of self-determination" as any other citizen in the Mandated Territory.
Again, you may perceive the Jewish Citizens as foreign colonist. But is does not change the fact that the Jewish Immigrant was encouraged to immigrate into the Mandated Territory by the Allied Powers in which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic rendered all title and rights.
(COMMENT)What about Russia in Syria or France in our own revolutionary war?
Russia in connection with Syria falls into two categories:
Franch in connection with the American War for Independence:
• Exercising the International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
• To take urgent action, under the Action Plan to prevent and combat terrorism in all its forms under the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.
This is not all that dissimilar to the US entry into WWII when Japan and Germany declared war on America.
• France declared war on Britain, provided money and matériel, and sent an army to the United States.
• This was a common enemy fight on multiple fronts.
(COMMENT)Where do you get the opinion that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves?
Link?
Again, this is your objective perception, as you process the information. I did not say that. I made two important points:
• The direct confrontation between the Jewish Citizens of Mandated Territory versus the Arab Citizens of the Mandated Territory is a domestic matter. It is outside UN juridiction.
• The Arab League was the aggressor. You cannot attack first and then claim to be a defender (except in rare circumstances).
Article 2 Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter [Article 2(4)] shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Most Respectfully,
R
The hostiles were the European colonial terrorists and British intelligence reports confirmed that an intervention by the Arab states was the only thing that could stop the massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims at the hands of the hostile Zionist terrorists. Rocco, you are lying,racist propagandist. Stick to the facts, stop spouting propaganda.
"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'....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