No like the French don't have exclusive rights to Italy, the Syrians have no rights to Palestine. But the Jew do under international law of 1923 that granted them sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, something you don't seem to have yet taken in and studied.
Abbas refused peace offer and state in 2008
- Thread starter aris2chat
- Start date
No like the French don't have exclusive rights to Italy, the Syrians have no rights to Palestine. But the Jew do under international law of 1923 that granted them sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, something you don't seem to have yet taken in and studied.
And who has told you this, as the history books tell a different story. And these are the history books of the muslims, not the Zionists or Jews. They show that the non muslims were massacred on a whim, forced into conversion, brutalised, had property taken by force and saw their daughters raped and taken as sex slaves by muslims.
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
Link to YOUR history books!
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,461
- 4,684
- 1,815
France and Italy, both had to fight and defend their sovereignty, several times, before their territory demarcation was finally negotiated.
As the Palestinians have done for a hundred years and continue to do today. The Palestinians have the legal right to defend their country.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,461
- 4,684
- 1,815
But in this case (Israeli-Palestinian), you --- again did not get it. I think you will find that I was making the point that the Arab Palestinians did not have the exclusive right to self-determination, at the expense of the Allied Powers acceptance of --- Turkish renounced the titles to the territory ---
But the Allied Powers never took title to the territory. They held the territory in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone.
And the Palestinians were the legally defined inhabitants of Palestine, a territory with legally defined international borders.
The treaties say that you are lying as the land was passed to the LoN and they became the sovereign rulers. The Palestinians being the Jews of course, who could trace their existence on the land for 4,500 years. The territory had defined borders only for Jewish Palestine if you read the Mandate, it was never the arab muslim nation of Palestine. That6 did not exist until 1988
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,461
- 4,684
- 1,815
The Palestinians being the Jews of course,
Where does it say that only Jews will be Palestinians?
Link?
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, that is a logic failure.
(COMMENT)
It was never "their country." It was not "their country" for the 800 years of Ottoman Rule. And it was not "their country" after the Ottoman Empire / Turkish Republic renounced title to the territory by treaty.
But Historically, the inhabitance of the land do not have a right to territorial sovereignty. (Since you mentioned Italy and France, I will use them as an example. I will not go back to the Roman era, but needless to say, there was history of an Empire before the time of the Papal States.) Muslim Rule dates back to the 10th century; beginning in the Emirate of Sicily in 902, and ending with the Norman (French) capture by Roger I --- called Roger Bosso and The Great Count, the Count of Sicily from 1071 to 1101. The Norman (descendants of Vikings, who settled in the northwest France in the early 10th century ), Roger Bosso (AKA Roger I, the Great Count of Sicily) had control of Sicily, and eventually the Counties of Apulia and Calabria, north of the Duchy of Naples. Roger I became the successor to the Hauteville inheritance and Overlord to the Principality of Capua. This period is sometimes called the Norman conquest of southern Italy. And it remained relatively stable. This is how the French had come to established a historic sovereign claim to Sicily and southern Italy. But the stability was disrupted by the rebellion in the boot (Calabria) chiefly orchestrated by the Holy Roman Emporer, King Louis VI (France) and King Henry I (England). Eventually the Imperial Army of Duke Henry of Bavaria (German), in direct support of the Holy Roman Emperor, and shifted the balance of power. Thus forcing Roger II back to the Island Kingdom of Sicily (a totally separate Kingdom under the Crown of Aragon) and leaving the boot of Italy to reform. The over 50,000 "inhabitants" of the remaining of the rebellion surrendered in 1139. By the end of the political maneuvering, coercion, bribes, pay-offs and corruption, the Treaty of Mignano in 1144, the Papal Emperor crowned Roger II the Overload of Capua, Duke of Apulia and King of Sicily. The formal boundaries fixed by a truce.
I could write more, but I think this makes the point. The rebellion of the inhabitance, and the fact that there were inhabitance, made no difference. There is no "right" of the inhabitance. The modern day ban on Colonialism and UN Resolutions 61/295 (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and 1514 (XV) (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) have never actually past into law and come into force. But, the lofty ideals have not been exercised as a general practice accepted as law; with the widespread belief that such practice is required. In the example, you see where the Muslims, the French, the Germans and the Papal Force exercised the authority over the southern boot of Italy and Sicily. And this was the standard. Whether we talk about the Philippine Revolution that was crashed by the Spanish, the Indigenous Indians crushed by the Americans, or the Italo-Abyssinia War between the Kingdom of Italy and the Ethiopian Empire; resulting in the occupation of Ethiopia, --- all happened in the 19th Century. And, of course, the wars of the twenty-first century that have been fought only partly by soldiers and, for the most part, will no longer be directed against military objectives (Arab/Muslim Legacy).
The end-game here is that while "Rights of Indigenous People" and the "Right to Independence of Colonial People" have received media attention and political lip service, the fact of the matter is that in reality, it is not a genuine "Right."
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, that is a logic failure.
(COMMENT)
It was never "their country." It was not "their country" for the 800 years of Ottoman Rule. And it was not "their country" after the Ottoman Empire / Turkish Republic renounced title to the territory by treaty.
But Historically, the inhabitance of the land do not have a right to territorial sovereignty. (Since you mentioned Italy and France, I will use them as an example. I will not go back to the Roman era, but needless to say, there was history of an Empire before the time of the Papal States.) Muslim Rule dates back to the 10th century; beginning in the Emirate of Sicily in 902, and ending with the Norman (French) capture by Roger I --- called Roger Bosso and The Great Count, the Count of Sicily from 1071 to 1101. The Norman (descendants of Vikings, who settled in the northwest France in the early 10th century ), Roger Bosso (AKA Roger I, the Great Count of Sicily) had control of Sicily, and eventually the Counties of Apulia and Calabria, north of the Duchy of Naples. Roger I became the successor to the Hauteville inheritance and Overlord to the Principality of Capua. This period is sometimes called the Norman conquest of southern Italy. And it remained relatively stable. This is how the French had come to established a historic sovereign claim to Sicily and southern Italy. But the stability was disrupted by the rebellion in the boot (Calabria) chiefly orchestrated by the Holy Roman Emporer, King Louis VI (France) and King Henry I (England). Eventually the Imperial Army of Duke Henry of Bavaria (German), in direct support of the Holy Roman Emperor, and shifted the balance of power. Thus forcing Roger II back to the Island Kingdom of Sicily (a totally separate Kingdom under the Crown of Aragon) and leaving the boot of Italy to reform. The over 50,000 "inhabitants" of the remaining of the rebellion surrendered in 1139. By the end of the political maneuvering, coercion, bribes, pay-offs and corruption, the Treaty of Mignano in 1144, the Papal Emperor crowned Roger II the Overload of Capua, Duke of Apulia and King of Sicily. The formal boundaries fixed by a truce.
I could write more, but I think this makes the point. The rebellion of the inhabitance, and the fact that there were inhabitance, made no difference. There is no "right" of the inhabitance. The modern day ban on Colonialism and UN Resolutions 61/295 (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and 1514 (XV) (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) have never actually past into law and come into force. But, the lofty ideals have not been exercised as a general practice accepted as law; with the widespread belief that such practice is required. In the example, you see where the Muslims, the French, the Germans and the Papal Force exercised the authority over the southern boot of Italy and Sicily. And this was the standard. Whether we talk about the Philippine Revolution that was crashed by the Spanish, the Indigenous Indians crushed by the Americans, or the Italo-Abyssinia War between the Kingdom of Italy and the Ethiopian Empire; resulting in the occupation of Ethiopia, --- all happened in the 19th Century. And, of course, the wars of the twenty-first century that have been fought only partly by soldiers and, for the most part, will no longer be directed against military objectives (Arab/Muslim Legacy).
The end-game here is that while "Rights of Indigenous People" and the "Right to Independence of Colonial People" have received media attention and political lip service, the fact of the matter is that in reality, it is not a genuine "Right."
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,461
- 4,684
- 1,815
OK but, The Treaty of Lausanne, the LoN Covenant, and mandate documents place the inhabitants in primary concern. The rights of inhabitants have been reiterated in subsequent UN resolutions.
I think you are grasping at straws. I don't see a valid opposition to my position.
Are you denying historical documents that say the muslims called the Jews Palestinians as an insult, in fact turning it into a dirty word. Since the Romans named the land Palestine as a corruption of Philistine
The Truth about the Palestinian People
Judah lost its independence to Rome in the year 70 and became again a colony. In the year 135, the Romans gave the country the name "Palaestina". The name Palaestina, which became Palestine in English, is derived from Herodotus, who used the term Palaistine Syria to refer to the entire southern part of Syria, meaning "Philistine Syria." This was to add insult to injury against the Jewish people. The intent was to remove any memory of a Jewish presence. The name was kept by the next possessors, the Byzantine Empire, and then by the conquering Arabs and their successors, the conquering Turks. Note that we have a succession of different nationalities, none of whom thought of themselves as Palestinians. They were the Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, or Turks.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
That is a matter of interpretation. You do not have a "valid position." There cannot be an opposition to something that doesn't exist.
Nowhere does it say that the "inhabitants are a primary concern." The establishment of the Jewish National Home had equal weight to the limited civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine of the first decade to the 20th Century. Nowhere does it say that primary goal was to grant the Arab inhabitants of Palestine independence. Over three-quarters of the original territory designated as territory to which the Mandate would apply went to the establishment of Arab autonomy and then independence.
It should be noted that while the establishment of the "Jewish National Home," and "self-governing institution are mentioned specifically, only the undefined notion of civil and religious rights are mentioned concerning the inhabitants. The question is: what were the defined civil and religious rights of the day?
• United Nations: Political History of Palestine under British Administration
3. The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations: (i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home; (ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and (iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
The principle difference rested in the fact that the Arab Palestinians refused to cooperation at all with the Mandate Government from the beginning to the end. And, the Arab Palestinian refused to participate. Thus any "imbalance" was in part a responsibility of the Arab Palestinian who resisted and rejected the notion of participating in the general administration of the territory.
That really only left one solution that looked viable at the time; the "two-state solution" by partition.
Most Respectfully,
R
That is a matter of interpretation. You do not have a "valid position." There cannot be an opposition to something that doesn't exist.
(COMMENT)
Nowhere does it say that the "inhabitants are a primary concern." The establishment of the Jewish National Home had equal weight to the limited civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine of the first decade to the 20th Century. Nowhere does it say that primary goal was to grant the Arab inhabitants of Palestine independence. Over three-quarters of the original territory designated as territory to which the Mandate would apply went to the establishment of Arab autonomy and then independence.
It should be noted that while the establishment of the "Jewish National Home," and "self-governing institution are mentioned specifically, only the undefined notion of civil and religious rights are mentioned concerning the inhabitants. The question is: what were the defined civil and religious rights of the day?
• United Nations: Political History of Palestine under British Administration
3. The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations: (i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home; (ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and (iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
22. Later in l923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed "the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency". The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that "the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration". The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
"The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages؟. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines."In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.
The Palestinians wanted ALL of the remainder of the Territory under Mandate west of the Jordan River. "The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages؟. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines."
88. In these circumstances the maintenance of the Mandate would mean the indefinite continuance of unrest and disturbance. The Commission therefore recommended that His Majesty's Government should take steps to terminate the Mandate and to partition the country in such a way as to create an independent Jewish State in the north and west, and to incorporate most of the remaining territory in Trans-Jordan.
"Manifestly", the Commission wrote, "the problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question 'which of them in the end will govern Palestine?' must surely be 'Neither.' We do not think that any fair-minded statesman would suppose, now that the hope of harmony between the races has proved untenable, that Britain ought either to hand over to Arab rule 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been for the most part facilitated by the British Government and approved by the League of Nations; or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million or so of Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But, while neither race can justly rule all Palestine, we see no reason why, if it were practicable, each race should not rule part of it."That really only left one solution that looked viable at the time; the "two-state solution" by partition.
The First Monthly Progress Report of the UN-appointed Palestine Commission, charged with helping put Resolution 181 into effect was submitted to the Security Council (A/AC.21/7). Implementation of Resolution 181 hinged not only on the five member states appointed to represent the UN (Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama, Philippines) and Great Britain, but first and foremost on the participation of the two sides who were invited to appoint representatives. The Commission then reported:
I am not at all grasping at straws. I am certainly not without history demonstrating the "intent" to create a Jewish National Home by the fact that it did happen, it was admitted to the UN and still exists today ad a stand alone, self-governing, nation that has successfully defended it independence several times. The Hostile Arab Palestinians that took the solemn oath to pursue the armed struggle and reject peace, cannot say the same even though they had the near exact same opportunities.“The invitation extended by the [181] resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. … As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PRESIST [PERSIST] IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UN[O] RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM [THERE FROM]. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE [TO] ACCEPT [THE] INVITATION."
The UN Palestine Commission’s February 16, 1948 report (A/AC.21/9) to the Security Council noted that Arab-led hostilities were an effort
“To prevent the implementation of the [General] Assembly’s plan of partition, and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory.”
On May 17, 1948 – after the invasion began, the Palestine Commission designed to implement 181 adjourned sine die [Latin: without determining a date] after the General Assembly appointed a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities.
ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PRESIST [PERSIST] IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UN[O] RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM [THERE FROM]. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE [TO] ACCEPT [THE] INVITATION."
“To prevent the implementation of the [General] Assembly’s plan of partition, and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory.”
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,461
- 4,684
- 1,815
Your problem, Rocco, is that you have that old government person belief that power politics trumps the rights of the people.
My moral value system will not allow me to hold that view.
docmauser1
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2010
- 7,274
- 698
- 190
Indeed, it does, - palistanian assholes are still kept assholes in their occupational refugee "camps", aren't they?
Like anyone gives a damn, of course.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,461
- 4,684
- 1,815
The principle difference rested in the fact that the Arab Palestinians refused to cooperation at all with the Mandate Government from the beginning to the end.
Indeed, all through the Mandate period Britain tried to get the Palestinians to sign off on their colonial project without success.
So what rights did the people have in 1923, 1931 and 1948 ?. Once you ascertain those you then have a basis for starting your rhetoric, but not to try and use 1999 treaties retrospectively for what happened in 1923, 1931 and 1948. Did the arab muslims have a right to the land in 1923,1931 and 1948 under any international laws, if the outcome is no then they don't have that right now.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
the leftist and radical Islam alliance .. the enemy of my enemy partnership ..- Started by yidnar
- Replies: 0
-
