Why Do Palestinians Lie About Wanting Peace? And Two States?

[Hollie]

Why Do Pal'istanians [- ed.] Lie About Wanting Peace? And Two States?

Because the Death Cult invented by Muhammud (swish) knows no geographic boundaries or passage of time.


Fatah military wing calls for terror attacks against Israelis: “Fight with every possible means… [and calls for] direct operations (i.e., attacks) which will place the settlers on the land of Palestine in [fire] range of the rifles of the Brigades” - Promoting violence for adults | PMW

Fatah military wing calls for terror attacks against Israelis: “Fight with every possible means… [and calls for] direct operations (i.e., attacks) which will place the settlers on the land of Palestine in [fire] range of the rifles of the Brigades”
Official Fatah Facebook page - Apr. 18, 2016

 

[The Great Goose]

If people are homeless then there is a problem.

They're not homeless. They also have an entire welfare agency dedicated to their exclusive use, abuse and fraud.

They need a little patch of land to call their own. I really think theyve been inundated with a complicated civilisation which they dont need. Most English people are the same. Australians, when left alone, just work quietly and want zero conflict. im sure Palestinians are the same.

They had it in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq so why did they migrate illegally

So there was just no one in Palestine?

 

[Roudy]

The Pal'istanians lie about wanting peace because they're not held accountable for their lies.

The PA's Billion Dollar Fraud - PMW Bulletins

The PA's billion dollar fraud

The Palestinian Authority is deceiving Western donor countries,
falsely claiming to have stopped paying salaries to terrorist prisoners, and reaping more than a billion dollars/year in return.


It is an unfortunate circumstance of the western world allowing the kuffar money spigot to flow while ignoring that the welfare fraud syndicate run by Islamic terrorists has a free hand to continue

The PA is the foreign appointed oligarchs of Palestine. Oligarchs always suck the money while their people eat dirt.

Yeah well you like the suicide bombing, shariah shit, Islamo-terrorist govt. of Hamas, we already know that.

 

[RoccoR]

The Great Goose, et al,

The true nature of this question (So there was just no one in Palestine?) is the implication of the question itself --- and the inferences it draws on the resulting consequence of the answer...

If people are homeless then there is a problem.

They're not homeless. They also have an entire welfare agency dedicated to their exclusive use, abuse and fraud.

They need a little patch of land to call their own. I really think theyve been inundated with a complicated civilisation which they dont need. Most English people are the same. Australians, when left alone, just work quietly and want zero conflict. im sure Palestinians are the same.

They had it in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq so why did they migrate illegally

So there was just no one in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Prior to the establishment of the Jewish National Home, there was no "Palestine" except for that territory
within such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers (not Arab factions).

The Boundaries of the territory to which the Mandate Applies, affixed by the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with any prior sovereignty --- or --- any future sovereignty. Most of the boundaries in the Middle East were established by powers beyond that of the Arabs.

Migration is not illegal. In the case of the territory to which the Mandate was Applied, at that time it was important to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encouraged Jews willing to assist in the
establishment of the Jewish National Home (back then and into the future).

Because there were Arab inhabitants in the regional area at the turn into the 20th Century, does not imply that there was an independent or sovereign nation or some other self-governing institution. At that time they were Sanjuks and Vilyets; with no single Sanjuk or Vilyet conforming to the Paulette-Newcombe or Syke-Picot Agreements.

I am not at all sure that the Arab Palestinians, "just work quietly and want zero conflict." If they really wanted peace, they would have more sovereign territory then just the West Bank and Gaza, already in a peaceful setting. But that is not the case. The Arab Palestinians were not satisfied with their choices, even during the PLO Orchestrated Civil War in Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Great Goose, et al,

The true nature of this question (So there was just no one in Palestine?) is the implication of the question itself --- and the inferences it draws on the resulting consequence of the answer...

If people are homeless then there is a problem.

They're not homeless. They also have an entire welfare agency dedicated to their exclusive use, abuse and fraud.

They need a little patch of land to call their own. I really think theyve been inundated with a complicated civilisation which they dont need. Most English people are the same. Australians, when left alone, just work quietly and want zero conflict. im sure Palestinians are the same.

They had it in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq so why did they migrate illegally

So there was just no one in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Prior to the establishment of the Jewish National Home, there was no "Palestine" except for that territory
within such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers (not Arab factions).

The Boundaries of the territory to which the Mandate Applies, affixed by the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with any prior sovereignty --- or --- any future sovereignty. Most of the boundaries in the Middle East were established by powers beyond that of the Arabs.

Migration is not illegal. In the case of the territory to which the Mandate was Applied, at that time it was important to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encouraged Jews willing to assist in the
establishment of the Jewish National Home (back then and into the future).

Because there were Arab inhabitants in the regional area at the turn into the 20th Century, does not imply that there was an independent or sovereign nation or some other self-governing institution. At that time they were Sanjuks and Vilyets; with no single Sanjuk or Vilyet conforming to the Paulette-Newcombe or Syke-Picot Agreements.

I am not at all sure that the Arab Palestinians, "just work quietly and want zero conflict." If they really wanted peace, they would have more sovereign territory then just the West Bank and Gaza, already in a peaceful setting. But that is not the case. The Arab Palestinians were not satisfied with their choices, even during the PLO Orchestrated Civil War in Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to say that the important people get the state and the lesser people get the boot?

 

[Roudy]

The Great Goose, et al,

The true nature of this question (So there was just no one in Palestine?) is the implication of the question itself --- and the inferences it draws on the resulting consequence of the answer...

They're not homeless. They also have an entire welfare agency dedicated to their exclusive use, abuse and fraud.

They need a little patch of land to call their own. I really think theyve been inundated with a complicated civilisation which they dont need. Most English people are the same. Australians, when left alone, just work quietly and want zero conflict. im sure Palestinians are the same.

They had it in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq so why did they migrate illegally

So there was just no one in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Prior to the establishment of the Jewish National Home, there was no "Palestine" except for that territory
within such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers (not Arab factions).

The Boundaries of the territory to which the Mandate Applies, affixed by the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with any prior sovereignty --- or --- any future sovereignty. Most of the boundaries in the Middle East were established by powers beyond that of the Arabs.

Migration is not illegal. In the case of the territory to which the Mandate was Applied, at that time it was important to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encouraged Jews willing to assist in the
establishment of the Jewish National Home (back then and into the future).

Because there were Arab inhabitants in the regional area at the turn into the 20th Century, does not imply that there was an independent or sovereign nation or some other self-governing institution. At that time they were Sanjuks and Vilyets; with no single Sanjuk or Vilyet conforming to the Paulette-Newcombe or Syke-Picot Agreements.

I am not at all sure that the Arab Palestinians, "just work quietly and want zero conflict." If they really wanted peace, they would have more sovereign territory then just the West Bank and Gaza, already in a peaceful setting. But that is not the case. The Arab Palestinians were not satisfied with their choices, even during the PLO Orchestrated Civil War in Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to say that the important people get the state and the lesser people get the boot?

Don't know...what happened to the lesser important non Muslims that were invaded by Muslims, were slaughtered and had Islam shoved down their throats?

 

[The Great Goose]

The Great Goose, et al,

The true nature of this question (So there was just no one in Palestine?) is the implication of the question itself --- and the inferences it draws on the resulting consequence of the answer...

If people are homeless then there is a problem.

They're not homeless. They also have an entire welfare agency dedicated to their exclusive use, abuse and fraud.

They need a little patch of land to call their own. I really think theyve been inundated with a complicated civilisation which they dont need. Most English people are the same. Australians, when left alone, just work quietly and want zero conflict. im sure Palestinians are the same.

They had it in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq so why did they migrate illegally

So there was just no one in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Prior to the establishment of the Jewish National Home, there was no "Palestine" except for that territory
within such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers (not Arab factions).

The Boundaries of the territory to which the Mandate Applies, affixed by the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with any prior sovereignty --- or --- any future sovereignty. Most of the boundaries in the Middle East were established by powers beyond that of the Arabs.

Migration is not illegal. In the case of the territory to which the Mandate was Applied, at that time it was important to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encouraged Jews willing to assist in the
establishment of the Jewish National Home (back then and into the future).

Because there were Arab inhabitants in the regional area at the turn into the 20th Century, does not imply that there was an independent or sovereign nation or some other self-governing institution. At that time they were Sanjuks and Vilyets; with no single Sanjuk or Vilyet conforming to the Paulette-Newcombe or Syke-Picot Agreements.

I am not at all sure that the Arab Palestinians, "just work quietly and want zero conflict." If they really wanted peace, they would have more sovereign territory then just the West Bank and Gaza, already in a peaceful setting. But that is not the case. The Arab Palestinians were not satisfied with their choices, even during the PLO Orchestrated Civil War in Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Im more concerned about homelessness than states. To me its not important whether there was a state but more important that people have shelter and food.

Though thank you for the information. Of course Palestinians might be a little less peaceful than the average English-Australian

 

[Hollie]

Why Do Palestinians Lie About Wanting Peace? Two States?

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW

PA depicts a world without Israel

The Palestinian Authority makes no attempt to educate its people towards peace and coexistence with Israel. On the contrary, from every possible platform it repeatedly rejects Israel's right to exist, presents the conflict as a religious battle for Islam, depicts the establishment of Israel as an act of imperialism, and perpetuates a picture of the Middle East, both verbally and visually, in which Israel does not exist at all. Israel's destruction is said to be both inevitable and a Palestinian obligation.

The following description of Israel's founding in a Palestinian schoolbook represents the dominant dogma about Israel:

"Palestine’s war ended with a catastrophe that is unprecedented in history, when the Zionist gangs stole Palestine … and established the so-called State of Israel."
[Arabic Language, Analysis, Literature and Criticism, grade 12, p. 104]


And we should not forget that Hamas has issued their "Charter" which unconditionally calls for the obliteration of Israel.


Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988



Peace Partners™


As we know, Islamism is an warring, fascist cult, and there simply is nothing in the actions or the rhetoric of Pal'istanians that suggests their desire for a two state configuration.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I said that at all.

The Great Goose, et al,

The true nature of this question (So there was just no one in Palestine?) is the implication of the question itself --- and the inferences it draws on the resulting consequence of the answer...

They're not homeless. They also have an entire welfare agency dedicated to their exclusive use, abuse and fraud.

They need a little patch of land to call their own. I really think theyve been inundated with a complicated civilisation which they dont need. Most English people are the same. Australians, when left alone, just work quietly and want zero conflict. im sure Palestinians are the same.

They had it in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq so why did they migrate illegally

So there was just no one in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Prior to the establishment of the Jewish National Home, there was no "Palestine" except for that territory
within such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers (not Arab factions).

The Boundaries of the territory to which the Mandate Applies, affixed by the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with any prior sovereignty --- or --- any future sovereignty. Most of the boundaries in the Middle East were established by powers beyond that of the Arabs.

Migration is not illegal. In the case of the territory to which the Mandate was Applied, at that time it was important to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encouraged Jews willing to assist in the
establishment of the Jewish National Home (back then and into the future).

Because there were Arab inhabitants in the regional area at the turn into the 20th Century, does not imply that there was an independent or sovereign nation or some other self-governing institution. At that time they were Sanjuks and Vilyets; with no single Sanjuk or Vilyet conforming to the Paulette-Newcombe or Syke-Picot Agreements.

I am not at all sure that the Arab Palestinians, "just work quietly and want zero conflict." If they really wanted peace, they would have more sovereign territory then just the West Bank and Gaza, already in a peaceful setting. But that is not the case. The Arab Palestinians were not satisfied with their choices, even during the PLO Orchestrated Civil War in Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to say that the important people get the state and the lesser people get the boot?

(COMMENT)

Of course, in a world in which those who have been given the title and rights to a territory have the decision making authority, those with title and rights set the political agenda and the priorities for accomplishment. That is a factor. The definitions (whatever they may be) behind "important people" and "lesser people" has no meaning. Priorities are set based on the impacts and necessities of political and diplomatic value to those with title and rights; and are temporal in nature (changing over time).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Palestinian Media Watch. More Hasbara.

Beaten in debate again so resort to the islamonazi mantra of hasbara

 

[Phoenall]

Palestinian Media Watch. More Hasbara.

I thought I heard the pitter-patter of little Monty's Islamo-tap dancing shoes.

I like it when he claims his own source material is hasbara, then angrily calls the people who point out his stupid mistake as punks and zionazi's

 

[RoccoR]

The Great Goose, et al,

I'm not sure that the Arabs of the Region placed the same emphasis on the issue of food and shelter as did the rest of the civilized world.

Im more concerned about homelessness than states. To me its not important whether there was a state but more important that people have shelter and food.

Though thank you for the information. Of course Palestinians might be a little less peaceful than the average English-Australian

(COMMENT)

The hasty creation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which by the way is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions from UN Member States, demonstrated the importance that the Member States placed on the issue then, as well as today. The UNRWA which supports the delivery of core essential services, operates with a large shortfall, projected for 2016 --- the current underfunding stand at ≈ $81 Million; based on the continued growth of service requirements. The burden of growth is a result of several factors, to include the criteria established for the status of Palestinian Refugees.

But one of the major contributing factors to homelessness is the lack of Arab Palestinian projects created by the Palestinians and for the Palestinians. Most of the funding for that is diverted for other purposes; not infrastructure projects in Area "A" or as venture capital for start-up cost in small businesses. Of the nearly $4 Billion pledge to the Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA) to rebuild Gaza, only about $1 Billion has actually been received. This is due in part to the HAMAS inference that it would rebuild its arsenal to carrier on the insurgency and promotion of conflict. Donors, want to see more stabilities before they donate to rebuild something that will just be destroyed as a result of HAMAS activity provoking IDF retaliation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I said that at all.

The Great Goose, et al,

The true nature of this question (So there was just no one in Palestine?) is the implication of the question itself --- and the inferences it draws on the resulting consequence of the answer...

They need a little patch of land to call their own. I really think theyve been inundated with a complicated civilisation which they dont need. Most English people are the same. Australians, when left alone, just work quietly and want zero conflict. im sure Palestinians are the same.

They had it in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq so why did they migrate illegally

So there was just no one in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Prior to the establishment of the Jewish National Home, there was no "Palestine" except for that territory
within such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers (not Arab factions).

The Boundaries of the territory to which the Mandate Applies, affixed by the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with any prior sovereignty --- or --- any future sovereignty. Most of the boundaries in the Middle East were established by powers beyond that of the Arabs.

Migration is not illegal. In the case of the territory to which the Mandate was Applied, at that time it was important to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encouraged Jews willing to assist in the
establishment of the Jewish National Home (back then and into the future).

Because there were Arab inhabitants in the regional area at the turn into the 20th Century, does not imply that there was an independent or sovereign nation or some other self-governing institution. At that time they were Sanjuks and Vilyets; with no single Sanjuk or Vilyet conforming to the Paulette-Newcombe or Syke-Picot Agreements.

I am not at all sure that the Arab Palestinians, "just work quietly and want zero conflict." If they really wanted peace, they would have more sovereign territory then just the West Bank and Gaza, already in a peaceful setting. But that is not the case. The Arab Palestinians were not satisfied with their choices, even during the PLO Orchestrated Civil War in Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to say that the important people get the state and the lesser people get the boot?

(COMMENT)

Of course, in a world in which those who have been given the title and rights to a territory have the decision making authority, those with title and rights set the political agenda and the priorities for accomplishment. That is a factor. The definitions (whatever they may be) behind "important people" and "lesser people" has no meaning. Priorities are set based on the impacts and necessities of political and diplomatic value to those with title and rights; and are temporal in nature (changing over time).

Most Respectfully,
R

Here again you are basing your conclusions of false premise. You have heard the saying: "The land does not belong to the people. The people belong to the land." This is the basis of international law. The rules of state succession say that the people become the nationals of the successor state. Following international law, the Treaty of Lausanne says:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Also following international law the Palestinian citizenship order says:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

All peoples (the people of a defined territory) have a standard set of inalienable rights.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

These rights have been stated in many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine.

Your premise is that power politics supersede or negate international law and inalienable rights.

 

[Roudy]

Do Palestinians lie about wanting peace?

Do bears crap in the woods?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before; but I don't think you understand it.

Here again you are basing your conclusions of false premise. You have heard the saying: "The land does not belong to the people. The people belong to the land." This is the basis of international law. The rules of state succession say that the people become the nationals of the successor state. Following international law, the Treaty of Lausanne says:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Also following international law the Palestinian citizenship order says:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

All peoples (the people of a defined territory) have a standard set of inalienable rights.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

These rights have been stated in many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine.

Your premise is that power politics supersede or negate international law and inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

In reference to you first Quotation: Derivative of Section II - Nationality - Article 30 - Treaty of Lausanne.

•√• Corrected Quote: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

1) Nowhere in the Treaty does it speak directly to a place known as "Palestine."
2) The habitual resident was given Citizenship under the Order in Council and then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
3) There was no State to which to make them nations of... "such territory is transferred." It was yet to be determined. The territory was formerly district and provinces under the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
4) Section II is specifically addressing the issue of Nationality and not independence or sovereignty.
​

•√• Reference the comment of "self determination without external interference."

1) The OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic relinquished all TITLE AND RIGHTS, to the Allied Powers; Including the right to direct the future of these territories being settled --- or --- to be settled by the parties concerned.
2) All people of the territory to which the Mandate Applied have the right to self-determination. That includes the Jewish immigrants that were encouraged to willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
3) The treaty has no being on the right to independence and sovereignty. The establishment of the Mandate over the territory was a vehicle to implement the requirement to reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory.
4) The territorial integrity was at the discretion of the Allied Powers; not determined by the Arab Palestinians.
​

•√• Reference the observation: "many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine."

1) Yes, while there are many feel-good Resolutions pertaining to the Palestinians, very, very few of them are binding resolutions.
2) There is no law that prohibits the Jewish people from exercising their right of self-determination in the establishment of a Jewish State following the UN approved and adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence."
3) There was no law, Mandate, Order, Agreement, Convention or Treaty that prohibited the establishment in Palestine (the territory under Mandate) of a national home for the Jewish people.
4) The last of the Official Recognitions of the State of Palestine was addressed in A/67/L.28 -- "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." The territory occupied since 1967 is somewhat different than those demands made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (see Posting #32). This is the Observer Status that the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
​

Remember, the Jewish Immigrants had the same citizenship as the Arab Inhabitants. Thus, the establishment of the Jewish State, as recalled UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as mentioned in the UN Resolution of November 2012, does not constitute "external influence." However, the introduction of Foreign Troops by the Arab League does.

Most Respectfully,
R
​

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before; but I don't think you understand it.

Here again you are basing your conclusions of false premise. You have heard the saying: "The land does not belong to the people. The people belong to the land." This is the basis of international law. The rules of state succession say that the people become the nationals of the successor state. Following international law, the Treaty of Lausanne says:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Also following international law the Palestinian citizenship order says:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

All peoples (the people of a defined territory) have a standard set of inalienable rights.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

These rights have been stated in many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine.

Your premise is that power politics supersede or negate international law and inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

In reference to you first Quotation: Derivative of Section II - Nationality - Article 30 - Treaty of Lausanne.

•√• Corrected Quote: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

1) Nowhere in the Treaty does it speak directly to a place known as "Palestine."
2) The habitual resident was given Citizenship under the Order in Council and then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
3) There was no State to which to make them nations of... "such territory is transferred." It was yet to be determined. The territory was formerly district and provinces under the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
4) Section II is specifically addressing the issue of Nationality and not independence or sovereignty.
​

•√• Reference the comment of "self determination without external interference."

1) The OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic relinquished all TITLE AND RIGHTS, to the Allied Powers; Including the right to direct the future of these territories being settled --- or --- to be settled by the parties concerned.
2) All people of the territory to which the Mandate Applied have the right to self-determination. That includes the Jewish immigrants that were encouraged to willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
3) The treaty has no being on the right to independence and sovereignty. The establishment of the Mandate over the territory was a vehicle to implement the requirement to reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory.
4) The territorial integrity was at the discretion of the Allied Powers; not determined by the Arab Palestinians.
​

•√• Reference the observation: "many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine."

1) Yes, while there are many feel-good Resolutions pertaining to the Palestinians, very, very few of them are binding resolutions.
2) There is no law that prohibits the Jewish people from exercising their right of self-determination in the establishment of a Jewish State following the UN approved and adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence."
3) There was no law, Mandate, Order, Agreement, Convention or Treaty that prohibited the establishment in Palestine (the territory under Mandate) of a national home for the Jewish people.
4) The last of the Official Recognitions of the State of Palestine was addressed in A/67/L.28 -- "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." The territory occupied since 1967 is somewhat different than those demands made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (see Posting #32). This is the Observer Status that the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
​

Remember, the Jewish Immigrants had the same citizenship as the Arab Inhabitants. Thus, the establishment of the Jewish State, as recalled UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as mentioned in the UN Resolution of November 2012, does not constitute "external influence." However, the introduction of Foreign Troops by the Arab League does.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Rocco et alia

You are confused.

The British renounced their Mandate of Palestine as a result of the Hostile Jewish Invader's (HJI's) terrorism which resulted in a growing number of British casualties. With the renunciation of the Mandate control of the territory transferred to the UN collectively as no single member accepted the responsibility.

The Covenant of the League of Nation provides for eventual nationhood for the inhabitants of the former Turkish territories, the non-Jews were the overwhelming majority of the former Turkish territory that was placed under the Mandate. The UN Charter did not change this provision but repeated it in Chapter X1, Article 73.


"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....."

Chapter XI | United Nations

It is clear that the UN completely ignored this article with respect to the non-Jewish inhabitants. The whole operation which facilitated the dispossession of the non-Jews not only ran counter to the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations, but also the the UN Charter. The principal "that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount" were not protected for the majority of the inhabitants i.e., the non-Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before; but I don't think you understand it.

Here again you are basing your conclusions of false premise. You have heard the saying: "The land does not belong to the people. The people belong to the land." This is the basis of international law. The rules of state succession say that the people become the nationals of the successor state. Following international law, the Treaty of Lausanne says:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Also following international law the Palestinian citizenship order says:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

All peoples (the people of a defined territory) have a standard set of inalienable rights.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

These rights have been stated in many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine.

Your premise is that power politics supersede or negate international law and inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

In reference to you first Quotation: Derivative of Section II - Nationality - Article 30 - Treaty of Lausanne.

•√• Corrected Quote: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

1) Nowhere in the Treaty does it speak directly to a place known as "Palestine."
2) The habitual resident was given Citizenship under the Order in Council and then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
3) There was no State to which to make them nations of... "such territory is transferred." It was yet to be determined. The territory was formerly district and provinces under the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
4) Section II is specifically addressing the issue of Nationality and not independence or sovereignty.
​

•√• Reference the comment of "self determination without external interference."

1) The OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic relinquished all TITLE AND RIGHTS, to the Allied Powers; Including the right to direct the future of these territories being settled --- or --- to be settled by the parties concerned.
2) All people of the territory to which the Mandate Applied have the right to self-determination. That includes the Jewish immigrants that were encouraged to willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
3) The treaty has no being on the right to independence and sovereignty. The establishment of the Mandate over the territory was a vehicle to implement the requirement to reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory.
4) The territorial integrity was at the discretion of the Allied Powers; not determined by the Arab Palestinians.
​

•√• Reference the observation: "many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine."

1) Yes, while there are many feel-good Resolutions pertaining to the Palestinians, very, very few of them are binding resolutions.
2) There is no law that prohibits the Jewish people from exercising their right of self-determination in the establishment of a Jewish State following the UN approved and adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence."
3) There was no law, Mandate, Order, Agreement, Convention or Treaty that prohibited the establishment in Palestine (the territory under Mandate) of a national home for the Jewish people.
4) The last of the Official Recognitions of the State of Palestine was addressed in A/67/L.28 -- "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." The territory occupied since 1967 is somewhat different than those demands made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (see Posting #32). This is the Observer Status that the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
​

Remember, the Jewish Immigrants had the same citizenship as the Arab Inhabitants. Thus, the establishment of the Jewish State, as recalled UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as mentioned in the UN Resolution of November 2012, does not constitute "external influence." However, the introduction of Foreign Troops by the Arab League does.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Nobody has the right or the authority to violate the rights of others.

 

[Boston1]

Of course the Arab Muslims don't want peace. If there were peace, then the welfare would stop and they'd all have to get jobs ;--)

 

[Roudy]

Correct. The current leaders are going by Arafat's playbook, using their own people as pawns while Arabs and Muslims send money to their secret personal bank account to continue the conflict. Then one day when they've stolen enough they will skip town never to be seen again.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

No --- you have mixed some fact with some fiction.

The British renounced their Mandate of Palestine as a result of the Hostile Jewish Invader's (HJI's) terrorism which resulted in a growing number of British casualties. With the renunciation of the Mandate control of the territory transferred to the UN collectively as no single member accepted the responsibility.

(COMMENT)

As usual, there is some fiction to be found in your interpretation of events.

FIRST: The UK, did not abandon the Mandate because of mounting casualties. At the beginning of 1948, (Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said) "There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.
​

the Plan by Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), the British Foreign Secretary made a critical decision:

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

The British Mandatory understood that there no set of politically acceptable - and - diplomatic prospects, that would resolve the conflict. In the face of the dilemma and presented with "irreconcilable differences," that had no chance of resolving the differences between the Arab Citizens and Jewish Immigrants, the Mandatory came to the conclusion that the Mandate was now unworkable. Essentially, after the passage of the Partition Plan [A/RES/181(II)] in November 1947, together with the announced rejection of --- the British Foreign Secretary made the following decision:

"It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”
​

It had nothing to do with mounting Jewish or Arab Terrorism; or the associated casualties.

"152. His Majesty’s Government considered that these proposals were consistent with the terms both of the League Mandate and of Article 76 of the United Nations Charter. They also looked forward to an early termination of the trust:"

"His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine themselves
merely because Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. The proposals contained in the present memorandum are designed to give the two peoples and opportunity of demonstrating their ability to work together for the good of Palestine as a whole and so providing a stable foundation for an independent State.”

The Covenant of the League of Nation provides for eventual nationhood for the inhabitants of the former Turkish territories, the non-Jews were the overwhelming majority of the former Turkish territory that was placed under the Mandate. The UN Charter did not change this provision but repeated it in Chapter X1, Article 73.

"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....."

Chapter XI | United Nations

It is clear that the UN completely ignored this article with respect to the non-Jewish inhabitants. The whole operation which facilitated the dispossession of the non-Jews not only ran counter to the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations, but also the the UN Charter. The principal "that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount" were not protected for the majority of the inhabitants i.e., the non-Jews.

(COMMENT)

SECOND: Article 73, speaks to the future tense of Administrations, and not past tense of a Mandate.

The Mandate transferred to the UN under Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter. BUT, since you brought this matter up, this leads to the direct question about Article 80, of the UN Charter. The best explanation I've ever seen is the Article by the News Outlet Algemeiner and the presentation on Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State” 22 September 2011. EXCERPT:

{indent]The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.​

Now what is interesting about this is that before the Agreement to Alter was expired, during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the UNPC invited the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) to participate the implementation of the Partition Plan. Which of course, instead of using their influence from the inside, that AHC rejected the invitation and instead chose to us military forces to achieve what attain through diplomatic means.

ALGEMEINER: As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.​

The UN did not ignore the Article. it plainly did not apply since the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) had already been appointed by the General Assembly as the "Successor Government." Your assumption here is that the territory was abandoned. That would be an entirely wrong interpretation of historical events. The "Successor Government" was adopted by the General Assembly in the Part I - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine, Resolution 181(II):

A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

In the discharge of this administrative responsibility the Commission shall have authority to issue necessary regulations and take other measures as required.

The mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.

On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

"After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly. "His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."
SOURCE: Joint International Announcement released by the UN and UK Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
​

Article 80 Chapter XII - International Trusteeship System

1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.
​

As is clear, the multinational UNPC was the successor government. External Interference by Military Forces of the Arab League, attacked on the day of Israeli Independence. Both Egypt and Jordan staking claims (Gaza Strip and West Bank respectively) to their piece of Palestine.

FINALLY: For every argument, there is a counter-Argument. The arguments over the Mandate and the UN charter have absolutely no impact on Israel after independence and self-determination. The Jewish People were citizens and entitled to exercise their rights. No matter how the Charter or the Mandate are interpreted, even if they are interpreted 100% in all the favorable convoluted ways the Arab Palestinians have presented, it does not matter. The State of Israel will remain the Jewish National Home as envisioned nearly a century ago.

Most Respectfully,
R