Strange how it is when you use it and it supports your POV (but only after being manipulated )
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who are the Israelis?
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
Strange how it is when you use it and it supports your POV (but only after being manipulated )
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.
WRONG that was the mandatory's job not the mandates. Remember two separate entities
Correct the territory of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE as explained thousands of times in the past.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #323
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?
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.
√ 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
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes --- The Mandatory (Great Britain) was to administer. I've seen you place emphasis on this phrase before, as if to you --- it has some special meaning or place some limitation on the Mandatory with full powers of legislation and of administration, for governance --- which was only limited by the terms of this mandate; as overseen by the Permanent Mandate Commission.
In the "A" Mandates for Palestine and Transjordan -- the nation was initially given provisional recognition as independent, under which the provisional status would be considered for permanency after receiving the advice and assistance of a Mandatory until such time as it is able to stand alone. However, as late as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab Palestinians were offered opportunities to be brought into cooperation with the government under the proposal for “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine. This establishment would have been analogous to the "Jewish Agency” as a balance in influence. And the Arabs of Palestine declined to accept the tutelage as offered.
The Mandatory further laid down the framework for peace, order in order to establish a good government of the territory; another aspect which the Arabs of Palestine declined to accept the tutelage as offered.
The mission of the Mandatory consisted of, but not limited to, mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves, and in establishing their economic systems and position inhabitants for eventual independence as a nation. This to was rejected because it was to similar to that relationship with the Jewish Immigrants. The Arabs of Palestine never accepted that under Article 16 of the Treaty, the intent, title and right to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" was held in the hands of the Allied Powers.
Just as it is observed today, in the early days after the Great War, the Mandatory (as the Government) had to adhere to the threat posed to regional security pertaining to the traffic in arms and ammunition, --- and the transit and navigation, aerial navigation used in the trafficking of such weapons and ammunition. This is directly analogous to the Illicit flows of small arms and light weapons which undermine security and the rule of law of today. They are often a factors behind the forced displacement of civilians, massive human rights violations, drug trafficking and terrorist activity of grave concern to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA).
The Mandatory was to organise such local militia as may be necessary for the defence of the territory and employ it for defence --- as well as to address the maintenance of law and order. Subsequently, this militia is to be under the local authorities, subject to the control of the Mandatory. No military training may be given to the inhabitants of an offensive nature. Internal police and the local defence of the territory ment the requirements to meet the Article 43 criteria of the 1907 Hague Regulation pertaining directly to the public order and safety clause. By rejecting participation in the local governance and establishment of an "Arab Agency --- declined to assist in the steps calculated to promote the development of the activities in the law and order of the territory and to safeguard the interests of the population; and the development of self-governing institutions safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character --- the Mandatory was made responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,
A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
And what I've recounted here is merely a portion of what was included in the 1922 understanding of the "administration of the territory of Palestine."
What is interesting is that the Arab Palestinians consistently quibble over such phrases --- and drine on about the Arab Rights issues --- when infact, there was virtually no Arab Palestinian contribution made to the their community in the last ≈ 90 years.
The Arab Palestinian avoided every opportunity a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate constructively. On the contrary, the Arab Palestinians acted as a destructive influence which has ultimately had a significant negative impact on their ability to advance along a normal human development scale. The Arab Palestinian intentionally clouded the broad and long-term perspective on good governance and human development, along with a sense of what is needed for such development.
The Arab Palestinians consistently complained about Decision-makers in government, yet fled from any participatory opportunity to change the shape of their heritage, molding it to improve the collective future of the Arab Palestinians.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes --- The Mandatory (Great Britain) was to administer. I've seen you place emphasis on this phrase before, as if to you --- it has some special meaning or place some limitation on the Mandatory with full powers of legislation and of administration, for governance --- which was only limited by the terms of this mandate; as overseen by the Permanent Mandate Commission.
In the "A" Mandates for Palestine and Transjordan -- the nation was initially given provisional recognition as independent, under which the provisional status would be considered for permanency after receiving the advice and assistance of a Mandatory until such time as it is able to stand alone. However, as late as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab Palestinians were offered opportunities to be brought into cooperation with the government under the proposal for “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine. This establishment would have been analogous to the "Jewish Agency” as a balance in influence. And the Arabs of Palestine declined to accept the tutelage as offered.
The Mandatory further laid down the framework for peace, order in order to establish a good government of the territory; another aspect which the Arabs of Palestine declined to accept the tutelage as offered.
The mission of the Mandatory consisted of, but not limited to, mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves, and in establishing their economic systems and position inhabitants for eventual independence as a nation. This to was rejected because it was to similar to that relationship with the Jewish Immigrants. The Arabs of Palestine never accepted that under Article 16 of the Treaty, the intent, title and right to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" was held in the hands of the Allied Powers.
Just as it is observed today, in the early days after the Great War, the Mandatory (as the Government) had to adhere to the threat posed to regional security pertaining to the traffic in arms and ammunition, --- and the transit and navigation, aerial navigation used in the trafficking of such weapons and ammunition. This is directly analogous to the Illicit flows of small arms and light weapons which undermine security and the rule of law of today. They are often a factors behind the forced displacement of civilians, massive human rights violations, drug trafficking and terrorist activity of grave concern to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA).
The Mandatory was to organise such local militia as may be necessary for the defence of the territory and employ it for defence --- as well as to address the maintenance of law and order. Subsequently, this militia is to be under the local authorities, subject to the control of the Mandatory. No military training may be given to the inhabitants of an offensive nature. Internal police and the local defence of the territory ment the requirements to meet the Article 43 criteria of the 1907 Hague Regulation pertaining directly to the public order and safety clause. By rejecting participation in the local governance and establishment of an "Arab Agency --- declined to assist in the steps calculated to promote the development of the activities in the law and order of the territory and to safeguard the interests of the population; and the development of self-governing institutions safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character --- the Mandatory was made responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,
A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
And what I've recounted here is merely a portion of what was included in the 1922 understanding of the "administration of the territory of Palestine."
(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.
What is interesting is that the Arab Palestinians consistently quibble over such phrases --- and drine on about the Arab Rights issues --- when infact, there was virtually no Arab Palestinian contribution made to the their community in the last ≈ 90 years.
The Arab Palestinian avoided every opportunity a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate constructively. On the contrary, the Arab Palestinians acted as a destructive influence which has ultimately had a significant negative impact on their ability to advance along a normal human development scale. The Arab Palestinian intentionally clouded the broad and long-term perspective on good governance and human development, along with a sense of what is needed for such development.
The Arab Palestinians consistently complained about Decision-makers in government, yet fled from any participatory opportunity to change the shape of their heritage, molding it to improve the collective future of the Arab Palestinians.
Most Respectfully,
R
]P F Tinmore, et al,
Did your posting (response) get lost? All I see is what I wrote!
v/r
R
Sovereignty lies in the people of the place. All peoples have universal, inalienable rights.
Did your posting (response) get lost? All I see is what I wrote!
v/r
R
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?
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.
[/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
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #326
Rocco, this is what I posted. It came out clear on my computer.
-------------------------------------
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.
Sovereignty lies in the people of the place. All peoples have universal, inalienable rights.
-------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
In the context of international law of western origin, acquisition of territories means either:
• The assertion of a new sovereignty where there was none hitherto,
• A sovereignty modified by a change in the holder of the territory..
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 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.
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.
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
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:
• 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
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #328
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
P F Tinmore, et al,
That is funny!
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
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
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #330
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
What part of all this refutes my post?
P F Tinmore, et al,
All of it refutes your postings in one fashion of the other.
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
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
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #332
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
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.
What is the Crime of Aggression?
The Nuremburg Judgement of 1947 outlined the act of "aggression as:
• “the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
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:
"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. "
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
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:
• “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
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #334
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
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."
Do you mean the foreign colonists who were attacking and expelling the native population?
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #335
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
There is no such political position as "external assistance."
What about Russia in Syria or France in our own revolutionary war?
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #336
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
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.
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.
Russia in connection with Syria falls into two categories:
• 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.
Franch in connection with the American War for Independence:
• 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.
This is not all that dissimilar to the US entry into WWII when Japan and Germany declared war on America.
Again, this is your objective perception, as you process the information. I did not say that. I made two important points:
Most Respectfully,
R
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:
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,916
- 4,184
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #338
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
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.
What conflict did they incite when the colonists came down from Europe to steal their country?
The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.
Last edited:
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,104
- 280
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
"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
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
Of course, we have to acknowledge Arab intransigence and arab colonization as the primary cause for hostilities.
Myths & Facts: The British Mandate Period (Chapter 2) | Jewish Virtual Library
The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country’s absorptive capacity.
During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000. 4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated.
In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas. 5
The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936. 6
The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal.
By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. 8
The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922–36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.” 9
The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is . . . due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” 10
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 80
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 842
- Replies
- 96
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 250
- Replies
- 130
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 112
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8108
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-