Who are the Israelis?

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have the question wrong.

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

(COMMENT)

To be relevant, the question should be:

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

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

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

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

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.

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 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

NO SUCH LAW AS RIGHT OF RETURN

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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

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.

(COMMENT)

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

WOW, a whole page of external interference.

Only if you are a moron, but then you show that even the simplest of concepts is outside your grasp. Look at the history of Palestine and you will see Ottoman muslim and arab muslim interference for the last 1000 years or so. This culminated in the refusal to accept a Jewish state in Palestine even after the LoN gave the lions share to the arab muslims. The arab league by what ever name it used interfered in the rights of the Palestinians from 1917 when they reneged on the treaty made with the LoN and the senior arab muslim in the area. At the end of the day it is down to the muslims thinking that they have supremacy over the rest of the world, and enforcing it with violence.

THAT IS YOUR OUTSIDE INFLUENCE IN PALESTINE, NOTHING TO DO WITH BRITAIN, FRANCE OR THE USA. IT IS ALL DOWN TO THE FIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO MAJOR SECTS OF ISLAM AND WHO WILL CONTROL MECCA.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is funny!

WOW, a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

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

So much misleading information. I don't know where to start.

What part of all this refutes my post?

Only misleading if you don't have the intelligence to rationalise the facts. That the arab league illegally invaded the mandate of Palestine with the intention of genocide on the Jews living there and the theft of the land. The LoN should have called for a strike on mecca and medina using the new atomic weapons as a show of strength to halt the arab league in its tracks.

EVERY PART OF EVERY POST IN REPLY TO YOUR STUPID ATTEMPTS AT TWISTING TRUTH REFUTES YOUR POST

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it refutes your postings in one fashion of the other.

That is funny!

WOW, a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

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

So much misleading information. I don't know where to start.

What part of all this refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

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

External assistance is not external interference.

So you are using semantics, then the same applies to the Jews. This nulls out your claims and puts you back to square one. Unless you accept that the arab league invasion of mandate of Palestine in 1947 was outside interference ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

External assistance is not external interference.

(COMMENT)

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. "

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?

That would be the arab muslims expelling the Jews then, as they were the only colonists at the time. The Jews were invited to migrate by the land legal sovereign owners

 

[Phoenall]

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.

External assistance is not external interference.

(COMMENT)

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. "

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?

Link?

WHERE WAS THAT STATED LINK ?

 

[Shusha]

The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.

Immigration (actually return) is to be considered an act of aggression? That seems a slippery slope.

 

[Phoenall]

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 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?

(COMMENT)

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.

What about Russia in Syria or France in our own revolutionary war?

(COMMENT)

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.

Where do you get the opinion that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves?
Link?

(COMMENT)

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.

What land did the Jewish migrants try to steal then as the lands legal sovereign owner had given them the land before they arrived. Find me the treaty that says this land is granted to the arab muslims in recognisance of the promise made by a British statesman. Every treaty says that they lost the land they were squatting on because they sided with the losers, and under international laws of that time they were treated fairly.



You keep coming up with the same stupid claims and not once have you produced a valid link to substantiate them

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The casual way in which you say this, lends itself to a misunderstanding.

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.

(COMMENT)

Remember: In the sense of sovereignty (not civil rights in terms of property law) it was not "their country." No one can steal "their country" because the Council and the Allied Powers did not make disposition on the territory.​

Remember: Whether you want to characterize the encouraged immigration as a "colonial project" or what it was, immigration under the Mandate, to achieve a principle goal of the Mandate (establishment of the Jewish National Home) is really up to you. But clearly, was not an act of aggression. (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and General Assembly Resolution 3314)​

State sovereignty is found within international convention known as the “Westphalian System,” dating back to 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia; the treaty that concluded the Thirty Years’ War. The notion that every state has the right of self-governance over its people and territory is a concept that builds on the foundation regional peace. Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role for external agents in domestic structures. And this is where we get the notion of "no external interference."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The casual way in which you say this, lends itself to a misunderstanding.

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.

(COMMENT)

Remember: In the sense of sovereignty (not civil rights in terms of property law) it was not "their country." No one can steal "their country" because the Council and the Allied Powers did not make disposition on the territory.​

Remember: Whether you want to characterize the encouraged immigration as a "colonial project" or what it was, immigration under the Mandate, to achieve a principle goal of the Mandate (establishment of the Jewish National Home) is really up to you. But clearly, was not an act of aggression. (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and General Assembly Resolution 3314)​

State sovereignty is found within international convention known as the “Westphalian System,” dating back to 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia; the treaty that concluded the Thirty Years’ War. The notion that every state has the right of self-governance over its people and territory is a concept that builds on the foundation regional peace. Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role for external agents in domestic structures. And this is where we get the notion of "no external interference."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

 

[montelatici]

The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.

Immigration (actually return) is to be considered an act of aggression? That seems a slippery slope.

How can a person "return" to a place that they or their ancestors have never been? Going to a land, from another continent, to colonize it and create a state is not immigration. It is an invasion.

 

[Hollie]

The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.

Immigration (actually return) is to be considered an act of aggression? That seems a slippery slope.

How can a person "return" to a place that they or their ancestors have never been? Going to a land, from another continent, to colonize it and create a state is not immigration. It is an invasion.

You have continuing problems with understanding terms and definitions.

 

[montelatici]

The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.

Immigration (actually return) is to be considered an act of aggression? That seems a slippery slope.

How can a person "return" to a place that they or their ancestors have never been? Going to a land, from another continent, to colonize it and create a state is not immigration. It is an invasion.

You have continuing problems with understanding terms and definitions.

No, you have a problem understanding or communicating in the English language.

 

[Hollie]

The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.

Immigration (actually return) is to be considered an act of aggression? That seems a slippery slope.

How can a person "return" to a place that they or their ancestors have never been? Going to a land, from another continent, to colonize it and create a state is not immigration. It is an invasion.

You have continuing problems with understanding terms and definitions.

No, you have a problem understanding or communicating in the English language.

Actually, your slogans and cliche's regarding some "invasion" you refer to has been shown to be another of the frauds you perpetrate. Your difficulty with simple terms and definitions is concerning.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The colonial project was the aggression. Everything has just been back and forth since then.

Immigration (actually return) is to be considered an act of aggression? That seems a slippery slope.

How can a person "return" to a place that they or their ancestors have never been? Going to a land, from another continent, to colonize it and create a state is not immigration. It is an invasion.

You have continuing problems with understanding terms and definitions.

No, you have a problem understanding or communicating in the English language.

Actually, your slogans and cliche's regarding some "invasion" you refer to has been shown to be another of the frauds you perpetrate. Your difficulty with simple terms and definitions is concerning.

The Zionists went to Palestine under military cover to take over the country. How is that not an invasion?

 

[Hollie]

Immigration (actually return) is to be considered an act of aggression? That seems a slippery slope.

How can a person "return" to a place that they or their ancestors have never been? Going to a land, from another continent, to colonize it and create a state is not immigration. It is an invasion.

You have continuing problems with understanding terms and definitions.

No, you have a problem understanding or communicating in the English language.

Actually, your slogans and cliche's regarding some "invasion" you refer to has been shown to be another of the frauds you perpetrate. Your difficulty with simple terms and definitions is concerning.

The Zionists went to Palestine under military cover to take over the country. How is that not an invasion?

Your world of delusions and conspiracy theories is yours alone.

 

[montelatici]

How can a person "return" to a place that they or their ancestors have never been? Going to a land, from another continent, to colonize it and create a state is not immigration. It is an invasion.

You have continuing problems with understanding terms and definitions.

No, you have a problem understanding or communicating in the English language.

Actually, your slogans and cliche's regarding some "invasion" you refer to has been shown to be another of the frauds you perpetrate. Your difficulty with simple terms and definitions is concerning.

The Zionists went to Palestine under military cover to take over the country. How is that not an invasion?

Your world of delusions and conspiracy theories is yours alone.

Poor, poor Hollie, the Zionists themselves contradict her version of reality.

"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee
July 25, 1926



London (Jul. 23)

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The contemplated trip to the United States of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, the continuation of his efforts while in America to extend the Jewish Agency through his negotiations with the Marshall group, the possibilities of extending Jewish colonization work outside of the present Palestine frontiers, including. Transjordania and certain parts of Syria, were the main features around which the deliberations centered.

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania."

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh No, again I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm saying that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are intentionally trying to manipulate the events of the Mandate Era concepts of the 1920's to fit the conditions the frame for:

• Conditions to which Resolution 1514 XV Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) was to address.

• That in the late 1870's, when the first Ottoman parliament convenes in Constantinople deputies from Jerusalem (ie: Palestine) are elected was the beginning of the Colonial Process allege. And that the establishment of Peta Tikva (AKA: Em HaMoshavot) ≈ 10 km east of present day Tel Aviv, was really the first of the invading "expellers;" and not the first Orthodox Jewish settlement established in the Ottoman Territory that would ultimately become the Jewish State of Israel.

• Drawing an improper similarity to the notion that as early as 1915, in the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Emir Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca), the British promised support for Arab independence in the Middle East was some sort of Ethnic Cleansing Plan.

• And that the British and French governments, in concert with the other Allied Powers, did conspire to establish control over territory. And that it really was not part of greater economic and commercial interests.

• You are trying to downplay that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title in favour of the Principal Allied Powers (not the Arab inhabitants).

• You are trying to promote the notion that the first steps part of the process of Ethnic Cleansing, and not part of the Great War objective and strategy to ensure oil supplies from Persia (current day Iran) might be cut off by the Turks.

• You are attempting to push the focus on an alleged conspiracy to Ethnically Cleanse the territory surrendered to the Allied Powers by a Jewish invasion. And draw attention away from the Agreement between HRH the Emir FAISAL and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization, that all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration).
​

This is not a case of me tap dancing around the issues, but more of a case that you are trying make an association between what the intent and purpose of the century old leadership agreements what you perceive as Ethnic Cleansing today.

The Allied Powers and the League of Nations, as did Prince Faisal and Dr Weizmann, the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration. There was no attempt to ethnically Cleanse the territory.

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

(COMMENT)

The notion that "I" --- "believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" is simply twisting the facts again.

The HoAP have every right to defend "themselves" --- as along as they are "defending themselves." But that is not the case. It's not "their land" and did not (arguably) become their land until 1988 (and that is still undefined and not an internationally recognized permanent boundary). It was Ottoman Sovereignty for seven centuries before the Great War, territory renounced to the Allied Powers after the Great War.

The HoAP wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. They HoAP think the droning phrase "right to" really means "give me" (handout). If that was the intent, they would have said that.

The Arabs of Palestine - back then --- and the --- Arabs of Palestine - now --- create a hostile territorial environment --- and then blame the immigrants for reacting to protect and defend themselves. It turns out that the HoAP bit-off more than they can chew, and now complain to the world that the same people that murdered the Olympic Team Members in Munich, or the West Bank kidnapped and murder of three teenagers. They are neither defending themselves or involved in a righteous cause.

The HoAP virtual victim cry of "colonialism" based on the notion that General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) - "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" provides some special meaning to them. The cry of "colonialism" had no more meaning then (1960), than is has today. There are no Trust or Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) anywhere in the with the lands with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title into the hands of the Allied Powers. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Each year the Special Committee reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Palestine is not on the list.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Most respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

You have continuing problems with understanding terms and definitions.

No, you have a problem understanding or communicating in the English language.

Actually, your slogans and cliche's regarding some "invasion" you refer to has been shown to be another of the frauds you perpetrate. Your difficulty with simple terms and definitions is concerning.

The Zionists went to Palestine under military cover to take over the country. How is that not an invasion?

Your world of delusions and conspiracy theories is yours alone.

Poor, poor Hollie, the Zionists themselves contradict her version of reality.

"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee
July 25, 1926



London (Jul. 23)

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The contemplated trip to the United States of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, the continuation of his efforts while in America to extend the Jewish Agency through his negotiations with the Marshall group, the possibilities of extending Jewish colonization work outside of the present Palestine frontiers, including. Transjordania and certain parts of Syria, were the main features around which the deliberations centered.

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania."

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

The above is the same cut and paste you cut and paste multiple times across multiple threads.

However, because you're not paying attention, I was responding to the silly "invasion" meme that you and others parrot, all the while being ignorant of the scope of the mandate.

You fail (as you consistently do), to understand that the Ottoman invaders / colonizers suffered the same fate as other Islamist fascist entities. The "empire" of the Ottoman invaders / colonizers collapsed under the dead weight of Islamic fascism. That's a pattern that has repeated itself across the Islamist Middle East. The Ottoman invaders / colonizers relinquished all rights to the geographic area of Pal'istan allowing the mandatory the opportunity to provide the Jewish people re-establishment of their homeland.

All of the above has been explained to you and the other Islamic terrorist huggers / converts on multiple occasions.

Don't let your ignorance and denial of history be such an allowance for you to make a continued fool of yourself.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh No, again I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm saying that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are intentionally trying to manipulate the events of the Mandate Era concepts of the 1920's to fit the conditions the frame for:

• Conditions to which Resolution 1514 XV Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) was to address.

• That in the late 1870's, when the first Ottoman parliament convenes in Constantinople deputies from Jerusalem (ie: Palestine) are elected was the beginning of the Colonial Process allege. And that the establishment of Peta Tikva (AKA: Em HaMoshavot) ≈ 10 km east of present day Tel Aviv, was really the first of the invading "expellers;" and not the first Orthodox Jewish settlement established in the Ottoman Territory that would ultimately become the Jewish State of Israel.

• Drawing an improper similarity to the notion that as early as 1915, in the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Emir Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca), the British promised support for Arab independence in the Middle East was some sort of Ethnic Cleansing Plan.

• And that the British and French governments, in concert with the other Allied Powers, did conspire to establish control over territory. And that it really was not part of greater economic and commercial interests.

• You are trying to downplay that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title in favour of the Principal Allied Powers (not the Arab inhabitants).

• You are trying to promote the notion that the first steps part of the process of Ethnic Cleansing, and not part of the Great War objective and strategy to ensure oil supplies from Persia (current day Iran) might be cut off by the Turks.

• You are attempting to push the focus on an alleged conspiracy to Ethnically Cleanse the territory surrendered to the Allied Powers by a Jewish invasion. And draw attention away from the Agreement between HRH the Emir FAISAL and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization, that all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration).
​

This is not a case of me tap dancing around the issues, but more of a case that you are trying make an association between what the intent and purpose of the century old leadership agreements what you perceive as Ethnic Cleansing today.

The Allied Powers and the League of Nations, as did Prince Faisal and Dr Weizmann, the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration. There was no attempt to ethnically Cleanse the territory.

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

(COMMENT)

The notion that "I" --- "believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" is simply twisting the facts again.

The HoAP have every right to defend "themselves" --- as along as they are "defending themselves." But that is not the case. It's not "their land" they are were fighting over (until 1988). It was Ottoman Sovereignty for seven centuries before the Great War, renounced to the Allied Powers after the Great War.

The HoAP wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. They HoAP think the droning phrase "right to" really means "give me" (handout). If that was the intent, they would have said that.

The Arabs of Palestine - back then --- and the --- Arabs of Palestine - now --- create a hostile territorial environment --- and then blame the immigrants for reacting to protect and defend themselves. It turns out that the HoAP bit-off more than they can chew, and now complain to the world that the same people that murdered the Olympic Team Members in Munich, or the West Bank kidnapped and murder of three teenagers. They are neither defending themselves or involved in a righteous cause.

The HoAP virtual victim cry of "colonialism" based on the notion that General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) - "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" provides some special meaning to them. The cry of "colonialism" had no more meaning then (1960), than is has today. There are no Trust or Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) anywhere in the with the lands with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title into the hands of the Allied Powers. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Each year the Special Committee reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Palestine is not on the list.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Most respectfully,
R

There is no European claim to Palestine based on anything other than self-describe colonialism, invasion and settlement. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants have the inherent rights of the native people of the land. Your attempt to change historical fact is pathetic.

You also do not read the references you provide, doing so you shoot yourself in the foot as usual, your blind hate and racism towards Arabs blinds you.

"...Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom."


The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

And, Palestine is specifically named in UN Resolution A/RES/37/43 with reference to Resolution 1514 (XV) that you cite. Your dog won't hunt.


"Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to
Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of
the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,
....................... Reaffirming its faith in the importance of the implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,
contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,"

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

 

[montelatici]

No, you have a problem understanding or communicating in the English language.

Actually, your slogans and cliche's regarding some "invasion" you refer to has been shown to be another of the frauds you perpetrate. Your difficulty with simple terms and definitions is concerning.

The Zionists went to Palestine under military cover to take over the country. How is that not an invasion?

Your world of delusions and conspiracy theories is yours alone.

Poor, poor Hollie, the Zionists themselves contradict her version of reality.

"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee
July 25, 1926



London (Jul. 23)

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The contemplated trip to the United States of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, the continuation of his efforts while in America to extend the Jewish Agency through his negotiations with the Marshall group, the possibilities of extending Jewish colonization work outside of the present Palestine frontiers, including. Transjordania and certain parts of Syria, were the main features around which the deliberations centered.

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania."

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

The above is the same cut and paste you cut and paste multiple times across multiple threads.

However, because you're not paying attention, I was responding to the silly "invasion" meme that you and others parrot, all the while being ignorant of the scope of the mandate.

You fail (as you consistently do), to understand that the Ottoman invaders / colonizers suffered the same fate as other Islamist fascist entities. The "empire" of the Ottoman invaders / colonizers collapsed under the dead weight of Islamic fascism. That's a pattern that has repeated itself across the Islamist Middle East. The Ottoman invaders / colonizers relinquished all rights to the geographic area of Pal'istan allowing the mandatory the opportunity to provide the Jewish people re-establishment of their homeland.

All of the above has been explained to you and the other Islamic terrorist huggers / converts on multiple occasions.

Don't let your ignorance and denial of history be such an allowance for you to make a continued fool of yourself.

Cutting and pasting facts as references linked to neutral sites (in this case a Jewish site), is a necessary part of the process when making assertions. You haven't quite understood that yet. The European's homelands were in Europe, not on another continent. Basic logic is also something you haven't quite grasped.