Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

 

[P F Tinmore]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?

 

[Phoenall]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?

I gave you a lead to it in the form of the treaty of surrender that handed ownership of the land to the LoN. And it was not just land in the M.E. that was invaolved but also land in Africa and Europe

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?

I gave you a lead to it in the form of the treaty of surrender that handed ownership of the land to the LoN. And it was not just land in the M.E. that was invaolved but also land in Africa and Europe

Nice duck. You avoided my question.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?

I gave you a lead to it in the form of the treaty of surrender that handed ownership of the land to the LoN. And it was not just land in the M.E. that was invaolved but also land in Africa and Europe

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?

I gave you a lead to it in the form of the treaty of surrender that handed ownership of the land to the LoN. And it was not just land in the M.E. that was invaolved but also land in Africa and Europe

Nice duck. You avoided my question.

How when I gave you the answer, not my fault you don't like the answer beause it shows you are wrong.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am all for a Palestinian State with self determination. No longer would they have Israel to suck off of to support them. The big question is where can this be when no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homeland?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

 

[RoccoR]

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?[/QUOTE]
(ANSWER)

On October 30, 1918, aboard the British battleship Agamemnon, anchored in the port of Mudros on the Aegean island of Lemnos, representatives of Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire sign an armistice treaty marking the end of Ottoman participation in the First World War.

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

XVI. Treaty of Mudros
30 October 1918

—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.​

(COMMENT)

This replaced Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres. Turkey never surrender. It was the Ottoman Empire that surrendered. Shortly after the Treaty of Sevres was signed, the Turkish War of Independence started; with Kamal and the Turks winning. The War of Independence interrupted the ratification process on the Treaty of Sevres thus requiring something new. The Turks renegotiated the Treaty of Lausanne. In some ways it was a better deal, in other ways, Turkey lost more. Turkey renounced everything outside the new Turkish borders. They agreement was often described as the "Drastic Terms of Surrender." Alternative Source: The Drastic Terms Of Surrender

It was a form of unconditional surrender.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?

(ANSWER)

On October 30, 1918, aboard the British battleship Agamemnon, anchored in the port of Mudros on the Aegean island of Lemnos, representatives of Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire sign an armistice treaty marking the end of Ottoman participation in the First World War.

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

XVI. Treaty of Mudros
30 October 1918

—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.​

(COMMENT)

This replaced Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres. Turkey never surrender. It was the Ottoman Empire that surrendered. Shortly after the Treaty of Sevres was signed, the Turkish War of Independence started; with Kamal and the Turks winning. The War of Independence interrupted the ratification process on the Treaty of Sevres thus requiring something new. The Turks renegotiated the Treaty of Lausanne. In some ways it was a better deal, in other ways, Turkey lost more. Turkey renounced everything outside the new Turkish borders. They agreement was often described as the "Drastic Terms of Surrender." Alternative Source: The Drastic Terms Of Surrender

It was a form of unconditional surrender.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you don't have this quite right.

[

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

(COMMENT)

First, these "rights" don't start coming until 1945, and then slowly.

Second, the rights mean nothing if they are not used.

You highlight the word: "right," --- yet when did the Arab Palestinian use that "right?"

Just because you have the perception of a "right" does not mean someone is going to come along and give the Arab Palestinian something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you don't have this quite right.

[

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

(COMMENT)

First, these "rights" don't start coming until 1945, and then slowly.

Second, the rights mean nothing if they are not used.

You highlight the word: "right," --- yet when did the Arab Palestinian use that "right?"

Just because you have the perception of a "right" does not mean someone is going to come along and give the Arab Palestinian something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you don't have this quite right.

[

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

(COMMENT)

First, these "rights" don't start coming until 1945, and then slowly.

Second, the rights mean nothing if they are not used.

You highlight the word: "right," --- yet when did the Arab Palestinian use that "right?"

Just because you have the perception of a "right" does not mean someone is going to come along and give the Arab Palestinian something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.

You mean their rights to kill Israeli's? The nerve of Israel for preventing them their rights.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?

 

[Phoenall]

Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?

(ANSWER)

On October 30, 1918, aboard the British battleship Agamemnon, anchored in the port of Mudros on the Aegean island of Lemnos, representatives of Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire sign an armistice treaty marking the end of Ottoman participation in the First World War.

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

XVI. Treaty of Mudros
30 October 1918

—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.​

(COMMENT)

This replaced Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres. Turkey never surrender. It was the Ottoman Empire that surrendered. Shortly after the Treaty of Sevres was signed, the Turkish War of Independence started; with Kamal and the Turks winning. The War of Independence interrupted the ratification process on the Treaty of Sevres thus requiring something new. The Turks renegotiated the Treaty of Lausanne. In some ways it was a better deal, in other ways, Turkey lost more. Turkey renounced everything outside the new Turkish borders. They agreement was often described as the "Drastic Terms of Surrender." Alternative Source: The Drastic Terms Of Surrender

It was a form of unconditional surrender.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.[/QUOTE]



NOPE nowhere does it say that in any of the mandates.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you don't have this quite right.

[

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

(COMMENT)

First, these "rights" don't start coming until 1945, and then slowly.

Second, the rights mean nothing if they are not used.

You highlight the word: "right," --- yet when did the Arab Palestinian use that "right?"

Just because you have the perception of a "right" does not mean someone is going to come along and give the Arab Palestinian something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.

And who has prevented the arab muslims from exercising those rights, and give links to support any claims.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Surrender: cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.

OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory. You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender. And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory. The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII. What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory. (Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)

And YES! The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers. But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates: the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Now the non-Jewish population had two (and only two) sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie Civil Rights and Religious Rights).

(QUESTION)

In 1922, what were Civil Rights and Religious Rights?

• In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple: The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference. But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

• In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect. It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.

But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922. So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty? I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical. And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.

Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

• Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
• All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

• All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
  • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  • With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
    • a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
    • b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
    • c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

​

It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.

No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1948, the first occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accomplished by the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.

(COMMENT)

It was the Arab League that, using armed force and military aggression, exercised external interference in an attempt to circumvent the UN decision to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1948, the first occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accomplished by the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.

(COMMENT)

It was the Arab League that, using armed force and military aggression, exercised external interference in an attempt to circumvent the UN decision to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you consider the 1948 war to be external interference?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1948, the first occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accomplished by the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.

(COMMENT)

It was the Arab League that, using armed force and military aggression, exercised external interference in an attempt to circumvent the UN decision to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you consider the 1948 war to be external interference?

How many foreign arab muslim nations invaded the mandate of Palestine to wipe out the Jews and stop them from exercising self determination, and in the process trample all over the arab muslims right to self determination.