Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

Ya Allah, dude. The smokescreen is yours with your nonsensical "...gun in their face....", slogan. That's simply unsupportable. The Arabs were offered self-determination and sovereignty as a part of the territories under the mandate as was territory for the re-establishment of the Jewish National Home.

Your nonsensical use of the term "Palestinians" is itself a smokescreen and only serves to throw a burqa over the Arab claim to sovereignty in the entirety of the geographic area called "Palestine" to the exclusion of non-Arab residents

The term "Palestinians" was a 1964 invention that was a part of the original, fascist PLO Charter that whined:

The Original Palestine National Charter (1964) | Jewish Virtual Library


Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the large Arab homeland.

Did you happen to notice the term "Arab," disqualifying any non-Arabs from being classified as Pal'istanian.

Do yourself a favor and read the rest of the Arab-Moslem fascist diatribe.

The "gun in their face" of the Arab-Moslem fascists was actually the gun they aimed at their own heads.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Promoting the colonization of Palestine by Europeans "molested" the opportunity of the native people to pursue autonomous development.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.​

More crapola from Rocco.

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity."

Oh jeese.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.​

More crapola from Rocco.

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity."

Oh jeese.

"PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY"

Ya Allah. The Arab owners of a country called Pal'istan?

Here again we're alerted to a "country" that never existed, "owned" by arabs.

Funny stuff.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Promoting the colonization of Palestine by Europeans "molested" the opportunity of the native people to pursue autonomous development.

As we know, the Arab portion of the mythical "Country of Pal'istan" never had the abiity to achieve either governance or self-determination. They couldn't succeed decades ago and they can't succeed now.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

I agree with you. The "Palestinians" have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. And SOME of the "Palestinians" exercised that right to sovereignty -- the Jewish people. (Actually, imo, the Jewish people have MORE rights to that sovereignty, but I'm not going to quibble a hundred years later).

The question is NOT (I repeat NOT) about whether the Arab Palestinian Muslims and Christians have the "right" to a self-determinative sovereignty. They do. We all agree they do. The question is whether they self-determine they would prefer to have that sovereignty under Jordan's rule (a decision they made in 1947, which appears to have been un-made, both by them and Jordan); under Israeli rule (clearly unlikely) or under their own sovereign rule on a portion of the territory where the other "Palestinians" have ALSO declared sovereignty (as is their right as acknowledged above). There is nothing, in law, preventing two groups, two very distinct cultural groups, from EACH forming their own sovereignty within their rights (as acknowledged above). There are practical considerations which prevent that second group (STILL!) from sovereignty. Not the least of which is to learn to play in the sandbox with others.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

I agree with you. The "Palestinians" have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. And SOME of the "Palestinians" exercised that right to sovereignty -- the Jewish people. (Actually, imo, the Jewish people have MORE rights to that sovereignty, but I'm not going to quibble a hundred years later).

The question is NOT (I repeat NOT) about whether the Arab Palestinian Muslims and Christians have the "right" to a self-determinative sovereignty. They do. We all agree they do. The question is whether they self-determine they would prefer to have that sovereignty under Jordan's rule (a decision they made in 1947, which appears to have been un-made, both by them and Jordan); under Israeli rule (clearly unlikely) or under their own sovereign rule on a portion of the territory where the other "Palestinians" have ALSO declared sovereignty (as is their right as acknowledged above). There is nothing, in law, preventing two groups, two very distinct cultural groups, from EACH forming their own sovereignty within their rights (as acknowledged above). There are practical considerations which prevent that second group (STILL!) from sovereignty. Not the least of which is to learn to play in the sandbox with others.

You are posting clutter. Can you prove anything you said?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, and not a single one of the Arab Palestinians took advantage of the opportunity to "develop on their own."

Promoting the colonization of Palestine by Europeans "molested" the opportunity of the native people to pursue autonomous development.

(COMMENT)

We've talked about "development" before. The Arab Palestinians don't even try. And every time the issue is raised, they try and blame the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

Is this too difficult for you to follow?

Prove what? There is nothing in my post which requires "proof". That there are two distinct groups in "Palestine"? Self-evident. The one of them has exercised their right to sovereignty? Self-evident. That there is nothing in law which prevents a State from forming two States based on the self-determination of two distinct cultural groups? One can't prove a negative. If you think you have some sort of proof to negate my claim -- present it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore

Is this too difficult for you to follow?

Prove what? There is nothing in my post which requires "proof". That there are two distinct groups in "Palestine"? Self-evident. The one of them has exercised their right to sovereignty? Self-evident. That there is nothing in law which prevents a State from forming two States based on the self-determination of two distinct cultural groups? One can't prove a negative. If you think you have some sort of proof to negate my claim -- present it.

Not true. Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed the declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants. Where were the "Palestinian Jews?" These were all foreigners.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, and not a single one of the Arab Palestinians took advantage of the opportunity to "develop on their own."

Promoting the colonization of Palestine by Europeans "molested" the opportunity of the native people to pursue autonomous development.

(COMMENT)

We've talked about "development" before. The Arab Palestinians don't even try. And every time the issue is raised, they try and blame the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course they tried, the British disregarded all their attempts at nation building. The British never allowed the Christians and Muslims to pursue autonomous development. It started in 1922 where in correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation in London the British Foreign Office stated:

"Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine"

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

This policy never changed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Joudie Kalla

“My home is Palestine. Even though where I grew up wasn’t geographically in Palestine, everything about our family life was Palestinian. Palestinian families have this innate yearning for community and it starts in the home. I lived with my siblings, aunties, and parents and we were always together. Whether it was going on holiday, enjoying parties or simply having dinner, being together was what was important. The food we ate was always traditionally Palestinian, exactly what my parents had enjoyed when they were children. As we grew up, the dishes stayed the same, the food bonded us and helped to create a real sense of family — a Palestinian family." From “Palestine on a Plate: Memories from My Mother’s Kitchen,” by Joudie Kalla.

read more: A new generation of Palestinian chefs poised to conquer the world - Middle East News

 

[Shusha]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

 

[P F Tinmore]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

Why do you say that?

 

[Shusha]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

Why do you say that?

She wasn't born in Palestine. She has never even visited.

 

[Phoenall]

What is it called when people from one place go to another place, on another continent in this case, take over the land and expel and/or subjugate the native inhabitants?

If an indigenous people were expelled from their place of origin it is called a "return", or in the words of the legal documentation: the reconstitution of their National Homeland.

The people that invaded Palestine were Europeans. There was no return.

The indigenous people of Palestine are the same people that were there when the Europeans invaded. That they converted in time to Christianity and Islam did not change their indigenous status.

No they were arab muslims as their own leader says

 

[Phoenall]

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Are you arguing with history again, do you like being shown up as a LIAR

Jordan Formally Annexes the West Bank | History Today


Richard Cavendish describes the events leading up to Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, on April 24th, 1950.