Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand.

And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​

Evidently not.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what you are contesting...

• Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. ?"
• Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect. That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
• Are you challenging the fact that About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. is not covered over International or Customary Law?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand.

And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​

Evidently not.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what you are contesting...

• Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under "decolonization?"
• Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect. That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
• Are you challenging the fact that "decolonization" is not covered over International or Customary Law?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.

Then show who colonises it, and under what law this is seen as colonisation.

They have that yet fail to put it in place

They have that and refuse to put it in place

Who violates these rights when they are clearly seen to be in evidence

 

[Phoenall]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost. Dar al Harb is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.

But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims. What do European Jews have to do with it?

Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.

So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Territory and borders --- these are key issues; subject to the permanent status of negotiations.

I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.

(COMMENT)

Actual borders are actually defined by enforcement criteria. What you call the actual line is unimportant for argumentative sake. What is understood universally is the actual perimeter of the border controls. In the case of Israel 're' Palestine, the continuous border control barriers and the enforcement of border crossing control criteria, protocols and requirements define where the boundary is.

Your consideration is noted, and if all things were ideal and equal, your "I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders" might mean something. As it is --- it is merely an academic thought. The physical checkpoint crossing or the physical barrier is the reality of what is enforced and recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders are defined by treaties as Palestine's were.

They can only be changed be a treaty with Palestine.

Control is a defining factor of occupation.

As the treaty stipulating the borders says MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, it does not say state or nation of Palestine. But another aspect of that treaty does stipulate the borders of the National home of the Jews in Palestine. As this shows


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony. We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.

Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). See the C-24 Table:

View attachment 39078
​

I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore: The right to self determination without external interference.

R: The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​

P F Tinmore: The right to independence and sovereignty.

R: The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​

P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.

R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​

P F Tinmore: I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

R: The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​

• • Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
  • Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
  • Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory." It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition. Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously. It is one of the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.
R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​

I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.

So what borders have the Palestinians signed for in treaties with their neighbours, as those are the defining factors. They cant use the borders of the Mandate for Palestine as they were just for outlining the Mandates influence

 

[Phoenall]

So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Territory and borders --- these are key issues; subject to the permanent status of negotiations.

I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.

(COMMENT)

Actual borders are actually defined by enforcement criteria. What you call the actual line is unimportant for argumentative sake. What is understood universally is the actual perimeter of the border controls. In the case of Israel 're' Palestine, the continuous border control barriers and the enforcement of border crossing control criteria, protocols and requirements define where the boundary is.

Your consideration is noted, and if all things were ideal and equal, your "I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders" might mean something. As it is --- it is merely an academic thought. The physical checkpoint crossing or the physical barrier is the reality of what is enforced and recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders are defined by treaties as Palestine's were.

They can only be changed be a treaty with Palestine.

Control is a defining factor of occupation.

And Palestine has refused to negotiate such a treaty, wanting instead for an illegal outside influence to determine the borders for them.

The nation of Palestine has no borders set by treaty and until they do they will never be accepted for full membership of the UN

 

[montelatici]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost. Dar al Harb is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.

But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims. What do European Jews have to do with it?

Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.

So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.

No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit. Shows what ignorant ass you are. The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.

Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.

Article 55
"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:

1. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
2. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
3. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"

Obviously the UN did not force the UK (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"

Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

 

[MJB12741]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost. Dar al Harb is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.

But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims. What do European Jews have to do with it?

Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.

So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.

No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit. Shows what ignorant ass you are. The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.

Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.

Article 55
"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:

1. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
2. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
3. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"

Obviously the UN did not force the UK (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"

Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

OMG, how do ya like that? Muslims were "indigenous" people in Palestine. And here I truly believed there were no Muslims at all anywhere until after the 7th century AD. So you see, there were no people in the land until after the 7th century AD. Amazing what we can learn from the wisdom of Monte.

 

[montelatici]

Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine. What does religion have to do with who is indigenous. Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron. But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are close, but not correct --- not at all --- especially as it pertains to the Palestine Territory.

International borders are defined by treaties as Palestine's were.

They can only be changed be a treaty with Palestine.

Control is a defining factor of occupation.

(REFRESH REFERENCE)

Post #489, Free-Palestine Thread (MAR 25)

(COMMENT)

Once again, in 1923 --- before there were the States of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, the British/French Boundary Commission (Under the Leadership of: French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe) set the Northern Boundary between the French Mandate and the British Mandate; essentially a fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of el-Hamma. The Eastern Boundary was the final demarcation of the Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq)(between British Mandate and Occupied territory), and the Southern Boundary was established by a previous 1906 British-Ottoman Agreement.

In general, the Territory to which the Mandate applied in 1922/23 is expressed as; "the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean."

A border or international boundary, and other Line of Demarcation can be established in a number of different ways. The 1922/23 Northern Boundary for the Mandate of Palestine was established by and recorded as Diplomatic Note signed by LTC Newcombe:

No. 565. — EXCHANGE OF NOTES * CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SYRIA AND PALESTINE FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO EL HAMMÉ. PARIS MARCH 7, 1923.​

There have of course, been a number of additional agreements that have altered these arrangements; but at the time --- this is how it was done. In contemporary times --- the borders between the States of Israel with Egypt and with Jordan have now been formalized by Treaties treaties. For political reasons Lebanon the 1949 Armistice Agreement. The border with Syria is still not settled. The border between Israel and thePalestinian territories is also still to be negotiated.

You will note that the Agreements are between Allied Powers, as the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers the sovereignty of this territory under such boundaries as may be decided by the Allies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine. What does religion have to do with who is indigenous. Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron. But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.

But but Monte. If as you say religion doesn't matter than who was the imbecile who stated "Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine"? And when did the Jews first arrive in the land to steal it from the indigenous Palestinians?

 

[montelatici]

So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?

The owners of the land were the indigenous Christian,Muslim and Jewish Arab home owners and land owners (a very small minority of indigenous Arab Jews lived in Palestine too). Just as this 1896 documentary confirms.

 

[montelatici]

Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine. What does religion have to do with who is indigenous. Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron. But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.

But but Monte. If as you say religion doesn't matter than who was the imbecile who stated "Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine"? And when did the Jews first arrive in the land to steal it from the indigenous Palestinians?

To differentiate them from the European colonists who were Jewish. The European Jews began their invasion/colonization in the mid-late 1800s. This film shows Palestine about 40 years into the European colonization, as stated, the vast majority of the people (over 95%) were the indigenous Arabs in 1896.

 

[Phoenall]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost. Dar al Harb is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.

But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims. What do European Jews have to do with it?

Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.

So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.

No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit. Shows what ignorant ass you are. The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.

Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.

Article 55
"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:

1. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
2. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
3. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"

Obviously the UN did not force the UK (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"

Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

Keep trying Abdul one day you might get it right, and the Jews and Christiains were always persecuted by the Muslims

The UN was not even formed when the LoN ( not the UK or Britain ) created the space for the National home of the Jews on just 2% of the land after giving 98% to the arab muslims.

Arab muslims were driven out in 1099 leaving the Christians and the Jews in Palestine, then the Ottomans took over after beating the Crusaders. The arab muslims had no control of the land since 1099 and in 1917 the Ottomans lost control.

The UN charter did not exist in 1922 when the treaty giving the land to the worlds Jews was ratified and signed, so you can retrospectively bring it into force. Nor can a UN resolution breach International law so you can forget the UN charter until the arab muslims decide to abide by it.

 

[Phoenall]

Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine. What does religion have to do with who is indigenous. Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron. But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.

A lot when the term was not coined until 627 C.E. So the muslims are the recent arrivals after the Christians, who arrived after the Jews who had already been there for 2,500 years. So Christians arrived in the 4C, muslims in the 7C and ottomans in the 11C. So you see the demographics of the area show that the Jews have the greater claim by longevity, followed by the Christians and the last in the line is the arab muslims. So just because you HATE THE JEWS THAT MUCH THAT YOU WANT THEM WIPING FROM THE PAGES OF HISTORY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE INDIGENOUS TO THE AREA IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW MANY OR HOW FEW OF THEM LIVED IN THE PLACE. THEY WERE THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS FROM 1922 AND NOT THE ARAB MUSLIMS OR THE CHRISTIANS. IT IS YOU THAT IS DELIBERATELY IGNORANT OF THE FACTS BECAUSE OF YOUR ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHING

 

[montelatici]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost. Dar al Harb is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.

But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims. What do European Jews have to do with it?

Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.

So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.

No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit. Shows what ignorant ass you are. The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.

Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.

Article 55
"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:

1. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
2. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
3. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"

Obviously the UN did not force the UK (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"

Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

Keep trying Abdul one day you might get it right, and the Jews and Christiains were always persecuted by the Muslims

The UN was not even formed when the LoN ( not the UK or Britain ) created the space for the National home of the Jews on just 2% of the land after giving 98% to the arab muslims.

Arab muslims were driven out in 1099 leaving the Christians and the Jews in Palestine, then the Ottomans took over after beating the Crusaders. The arab muslims had no control of the land since 1099 and in 1917 the Ottomans lost control.

The UN charter did not exist in 1922 when the treaty giving the land to the worlds Jews was ratified and signed, so you can retrospectively bring it into force. Nor can a UN resolution breach International law so you can forget the UN charter until the arab muslims decide to abide by it.

The Treaty in 1922 specifically did not give land to the Jews to create a separate state, as the British reinforced this fact in a subsequent letter to the Zionist Organization. So please cut the bullshit.

• • 
    The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.

DOWNING STREET,
3rd June, 1922.


"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine...................it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

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

 

[montelatici]

Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine. What does religion have to do with who is indigenous. Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron. But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.

A lot when the term was not coined until 627 C.E. So the muslims are the recent arrivals after the Christians, who arrived after the Jews who had already been there for 2,500 years. So Christians arrived in the 4C, muslims in the 7C and ottomans in the 11C. So you see the demographics of the area show that the Jews have the greater claim by longevity, followed by the Christians and the last in the line is the arab muslims. So just because you HATE THE JEWS THAT MUCH THAT YOU WANT THEM WIPING FROM THE PAGES OF HISTORY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE INDIGENOUS TO THE AREA IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW MANY OR HOW FEW OF THEM LIVED IN THE PLACE. THEY WERE THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS FROM 1922 AND NOT THE ARAB MUSLIMS OR THE CHRISTIANS. IT IS YOU THAT IS DELIBERATELY IGNORANT OF THE FACTS BECAUSE OF YOUR ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHING

People change religions all the time moron. The only brainwashing is your ZioNazi propaganda schooling. The demographics of the area demonstrate that there were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to 1850. Europeans do not have a greater claim to a place on another continent, regardless of religion you dope. Jews were not the legal owners from 1922 you ignorant bullshitter, the British made that perfectly in a letter to the Zionist Organization that had been trying to make the same claim you are making.

Let's read the letter again knucklehead:

• • The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.

DOWNING STREET,
3rd June, 1922.


"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine...................it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

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

 

[Phoenall]

So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?

The owners of the land were the indigenous Christian,Muslim and Jewish Arab home owners and land owners (a very small minority of indigenous Arab Jews lived in Palestine too). Just as this 1896 documentary confirms.

Proves no such thing, but the Ottoman census does prove that the Jews outnumbered the arab muslims and Christians in Palestine. Here are the figures for Jerusalem alone


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


Nearly 6 times the numbers of Jews to arab muslims

So the numbers you produce must include ILLEGAL ARAB MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS
And even in 1948 before the expulsion of indigenous Jews from Palestine there were 3 times as many Jews as there was arab muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine. What does religion have to do with who is indigenous. Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron. But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.

But but Monte. If as you say religion doesn't matter than who was the imbecile who stated "Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine"? And when did the Jews first arrive in the land to steal it from the indigenous Palestinians?

To differentiate them from the European colonists who were Jewish. The European Jews began their invasion/colonization in the mid-late 1800s. This film shows Palestine about 40 years into the European colonization, as stated, the vast majority of the people (over 95%) were the indigenous Arabs in 1896.

Not according to the official Ottoman census

 

[P F Tinmore]

So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?

The mandate system was a compromise between the Allies’ wish to retain the former German and Turkish colonies and their pre-Armistice declaration (November 5, 1918) that annexation of territory was not their aim in the war. The mandates were divided into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone.

mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica


Following WWI, the League of Nations established a system of "Mandates." In theory, the Mandate system had the benevolent intention of preparing the "natives" of various regions for self government.

The League of Nations Mandate Provision​

The League of Nations Covenant regularly mention the people. That the inhabitants would be the beneficiaries of the actions of the Mandates and that they would stand alone as independent states.