Abbas suggests Obama promised 67 lines - E. Jerusalem

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

(COMMENT)

Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

From UN Security Council no. 46 of 17 April 1948


"Considering that, as stated in that resolution, it is of the utmost urgency to bring about the immediate cessation of acts of violence in Palestine and to establish conditions of peace and order in that country,"

S/RES/46 (1948)-S/723 of 17 April 1948

Continued moronic attempts at deligitimizing the rights of Christians and Muslims of Palestine hold little water. The UN itself cites Palestine as a country in the same paragraph. Being sovereign or not is another issue. Oppressive regimes with power can and will withhold sovereignty from peoples.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

(COMMENT)

Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

From UN Security Council no. 46 of 17 April 1948


"Considering that, as stated in that resolution, it is of the utmost urgency to bring about the immediate cessation of acts of violence in Palestine and to establish conditions of peace and order in that country,"

S/RES/46 (1948)-S/723 of 17 April 1948

Continued moronic attempts at deligitimizing the rights of Christians and Muslims of Palestine hold little water. The UN itself cites Palestine as a country in the same paragraph. Being sovereign or not is another issue. Oppressive regimes with power can and will withhold sovereignty from peoples.

Why don't you go on google and do some research as to when Palestine actually became a sovereign state. It shouldn't take you too long.
Then get back to me

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

(COMMENT)

Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

From UN Security Council no. 46 of 17 April 1948


"Considering that, as stated in that resolution, it is of the utmost urgency to bring about the immediate cessation of acts of violence in Palestine and to establish conditions of peace and order in that country,"

S/RES/46 (1948)-S/723 of 17 April 1948

Continued moronic attempts at deligitimizing the rights of Christians and Muslims of Palestine hold little water. The UN itself cites Palestine as a country in the same paragraph. Being sovereign or not is another issue. Oppressive regimes with power can and will withhold sovereignty from peoples.

No one is trying to de legitimize anyone. We started this discussion about when Palestine became a sovereign state.
There is nothing you can say that will change the fact that Palestine became a 'Country' in 1988. End of story

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.


(COMMENT)

Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

From UN Security Council no. 46 of 17 April 1948


"Considering that, as stated in that resolution, it is of the utmost urgency to bring about the immediate cessation of acts of violence in Palestine and to establish conditions of peace and order in that country,"

S/RES/46 (1948)-S/723 of 17 April 1948

Continued moronic attempts at deligitimizing the rights of Christians and Muslims of Palestine hold little water. The UN itself cites Palestine as a country in the same paragraph. Being sovereign or not is another issue. Oppressive regimes with power can and will withhold sovereignty from peoples.

No one is trying to de legitimize anyone. We started this discussion about when Palestine became a sovereign state.
There is nothing you can say that will change the fact that Palestine became a 'Country' in 1988. End of story

Not the "end of story". Palestine was no different in 1988 than it was in 1948. It had no sovereignty in 1948 and had no sovereignty in 1988. It had sovereignty when it was the Latin Kingdom and limited sovereignty while under the Caliphate at different times.

 

[toastman]

From UN Security Council no. 46 of 17 April 1948


"Considering that, as stated in that resolution, it is of the utmost urgency to bring about the immediate cessation of acts of violence in Palestine and to establish conditions of peace and order in that country,"

S/RES/46 (1948)-S/723 of 17 April 1948

Continued moronic attempts at deligitimizing the rights of Christians and Muslims of Palestine hold little water. The UN itself cites Palestine as a country in the same paragraph. Being sovereign or not is another issue. Oppressive regimes with power can and will withhold sovereignty from peoples.

No one is trying to de legitimize anyone. We started this discussion about when Palestine became a sovereign state.
There is nothing you can say that will change the fact that Palestine became a 'Country' in 1988. End of story

Not the "end of story". Palestine was no different in 1988 than it was in 1948. It had no sovereignty in 1948 and had no sovereignty in 1988. It had sovereignty when it was the Latin Kingdom and limited sovereignty while under the Caliphate at different times.

Wow, and you're accusing others of drinking kool aid?

Do I need to provide links or can you look it up yourself??

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Question?

From UN Security Council no. 46 of 17 April 1948


"Considering that, as stated in that resolution, it is of the utmost urgency to bring about the immediate cessation of acts of violence in Palestine and to establish conditions of peace and order in that country,"

S/RES/46 (1948)-S/723 of 17 April 1948

Continued moronic attempts at deligitimizing the rights of Christians and Muslims of Palestine hold little water. The UN itself cites Palestine as a country in the same paragraph. Being sovereign or not is another issue. Oppressive regimes with power can and will withhold sovereignty from peoples.

(QUESTION)

What authority was the Government for the county cited?

(ANSWER)

In April 1948, it had already been established that the UK was the Government of Palestine.

I cite the same document as before: PAL/138 27 February 1948

You can try and take it out of context all you want. It doesn't change reality.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have to read the "entire" quote from the UK. I think the next line is important.

(COMMENT)

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement resolution 181 because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council was faced with the prospect of having to implement it by force and it was not willing to do that. The US was proposing an alternate plan.

(COMMENT)

There were two implied remarks in the:

• 11/20/1947 GA/PAL/76 UK states views on partition and unitary plans - Ad Hoc Cttee - Press release
  1. that His Majesty's Government could not play a major part in the implementation of a scheme that was not acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews;
  2. that they would, however, not wish to impede the implementation of a recommendation approved by the General Assembly.

Then Israel unilaterally declared independence completely separate from the UN. There are some legal problems with this forced takeover of Palestinian land.

(COMMENT)

There was no forced takeover. The application was review by both the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

Because the arabs told them to.
Even those who had land appropriated for state use did not have to leave, only move to a different location provided by Israel. Those who had engaged in or supported terrorism against Israel were force to leave. The vast majority of refugees were made so by their fellow arabs who had also refused them a state under the UN partition.

Despite the fact Jews were being attacked and killed by arabs, Jews had issued appeals in Jan of '48 for arabs not to leave but stay and work with the jews to build a state for them to share. It was not the desire of the jews for the palestinians to leave. Appeals were published in Arabic and Hebrew for the palestinians to stay. They did not have to leave, that was their choice. Their catastrophe was of their own making, not Israel's.

 

[proudveteran06]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have to read the "entire" quote from the UK. I think the next line is important.


(COMMENT)

There were two implied remarks in the:

• 11/20/1947 GA/PAL/76 UK states views on partition and unitary plans - Ad Hoc Cttee - Press release
  1. that His Majesty's Government could not play a major part in the implementation of a scheme that was not acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews;
  2. that they would, however, not wish to impede the implementation of a recommendation approved by the General Assembly.

(COMMENT)

There was no forced takeover. The application was review by both the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

Because the arabs told them to.
Even those who had land appropriated for state use did not have to leave, only move to a different location provided by Israel. Those who had engaged in or supported terrorism against Israel were force to leave. The vast majority of refugees were made so by their fellow arabs who had also refused them a state under the UN partition.

Despite the fact Jews were being attacked and killed by arabs, Jews had issued appeals in Jan of '48 for arabs not to leave but stay and work with the jews to build a state for them to share. It was not the desire of the jews for the palestinians to leave. Appeals were published in Arabic and Hebrew for the palestinians to stay. They did not have to leave, that was their choice. Their catastrophe was of their own making, not Israel's.

Know when a Pro Palestinian is lying. When they open their mouth especially if they are Palestinian . I have produced several threads about the Mass Murder of Jews throughout history and of course the Palestinian ignores them . They could have had their " state" after WW 1. After WW 2 and certainly before 1967.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not according to the arabs themselves who were told to leave, or are you calling them LIARS as well ?

It was still only a few percent.

By a few you mean how many percent and can you prove it with a link?

I am not the one making the claim that they were told to leave without posting any stats.

 

[toastman]

But you're making the claim that only a small percent were asked to leave

 

[P F Tinmore]

But you're making the claim that only a small percent were asked to leave

The person making the claim needs to prove his point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

(COMMENT)

Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians.

Britain was a foreign government appointed by foreigners, against the wishes of the people, to promote the agenda of foreigners.

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

• To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

• To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

(COMMENT)

Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians.

Britain was a foreign government appointed by foreigners, against the wishes of the people, to promote the agenda of foreigners.

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

• To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

• To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

I read this post twice, and I fail to see how anything you posted refutes what Rocco said.
What was the point of your post

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have your timelines fouled-up again.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians.

Britain was a foreign government appointed by foreigners, against the wishes of the people, to promote the agenda of foreigners.

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

• To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

• To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

(COMMENT)

A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 came more than 20 years after 1948 Partition. Law cannot be applied retroactively. This particular set of Principles can be applied to the 1988 State of Palestine.

It did not apply to the actions in the establishment of the State of Israel, as it did not exist.

The concepts of the Charter are not in conflict with the Adopted Resolutions. The armies of the Arab League and the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) insurgents that opposed the implementation of the Resolution of 1947, constituted a direct threat under Chapter VII - Article 51 of the Charter. The attack represented a demonstrated threat to the peace and security of the region.

So even if A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 did apply, the Arab League and HoAP violated a basic prinicle:

• "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."
  
• "Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."

So it would also be the case that the Arab League and the HoAP were violators of the principles.

The containment of hostile entities that threaten the peace and security of a nation like Israel, which was duly constituted under the agreed upon Resolution, is not a violation of the Charter under Chapter VII.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have your timelines fouled-up again.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.



Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians.

Britain was a foreign government appointed by foreigners, against the wishes of the people, to promote the agenda of foreigners.

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

• To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

• To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

(COMMENT)

A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 came more than 20 years after 1948 Partition. Law cannot be applied retroactively. This particular set of Principles can be applied to the 1988 State of Palestine.

It did not apply to the actions in the establishment of the State of Israel, as it did not exist.

The concepts of the Charter are not in conflict with the Adopted Resolutions. The armies of the Arab League and the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) insurgents that opposed the implementation of the Resolution of 1947, constituted a direct threat under Chapter VII - Article 51 of the Charter. The attack represented a demonstrated threat to the peace and security of the region.

So even if A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 did apply, the Arab League and HoAP violated a basic prinicle:

• "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."
  
• "Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."

So it would also be the case that the Arab League and the HoAP were violators of the principles.

The containment of hostile entities that threaten the peace and security of a nation like Israel, which was duly constituted under the agreed upon Resolution, is not a violation of the Charter under Chapter VII.

Most Respectfully,
R

This was not new law. It was a clarification of existing law.

The principles of self determination were expressed in the League of Nations Covenant.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have your timelines fouled-up again.

Britain was a foreign government appointed by foreigners, against the wishes of the people, to promote the agenda of foreigners.

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

• To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

• To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

(COMMENT)

A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 came more than 20 years after 1948 Partition. Law cannot be applied retroactively. This particular set of Principles can be applied to the 1988 State of Palestine.

It did not apply to the actions in the establishment of the State of Israel, as it did not exist.

The concepts of the Charter are not in conflict with the Adopted Resolutions. The armies of the Arab League and the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) insurgents that opposed the implementation of the Resolution of 1947, constituted a direct threat under Chapter VII - Article 51 of the Charter. The attack represented a demonstrated threat to the peace and security of the region.

So even if A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 did apply, the Arab League and HoAP violated a basic prinicle:

• "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."
  
• "Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."

So it would also be the case that the Arab League and the HoAP were violators of the principles.

The containment of hostile entities that threaten the peace and security of a nation like Israel, which was duly constituted under the agreed upon Resolution, is not a violation of the Charter under Chapter VII.

Most Respectfully,
R

This was not new law. It was a clarification of existing law.

The principles of self determination were expressed in the League of Nations Covenant.

There has to be some readiness and effort to self determination, not just a desire to have a state. Even with a desire to self determination of a state, those within the state might have other idea and not want to be separate or can't function well on their own and prefer to part of a "greater" state.
Palestinian were not and are still not ready for their own state. They are not of one mind or one identity, nor do they have the structure capable or running an effective state. Just wanting it is not enough.
They have to be ready to live in peace and cooperation with their neighbors, not exterminate their neighbor.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just a short follow-on.

Sure, 750,000 Palestinians left theiy homes because Israel said please.

BTW, your link calls Palestine a country twice.

(COMMENT)

Refugee columns are not unusual in any war. There is not one single reason for a community to abandon their homes and move out of the theater of combat military operations. Some will move as a matter of common sense and to avoid becoming collateral casualties. Some will move on because, as non-combatants, they are being evacuated to avoid unnecessary casualties. Some will be move out of the area because the represent a fifth columnist threat to rear area operations. There are many reasons for a refugee column to form. You are only focused on one of them.

Second, in respect to the attachment of the word "country" --- you will no doubt notice that in this regard, the Government of that named country was the UK, and not the Palestinians. In no way did anything in the link remotely suggest that the Arab Palestinians had a "country." In fact, no Arab-Palestinian Government was even mentioned in the link. The word "country" was never used in the context of an Arab Palestinian Government or sovereignty. The status of the territory, held in trust by the UK as the Mandatory, was then (in that time frame - 20 November 1947) and unequivocally stated in a release on (PAL/138) 27 February 1948, concerning the Successor Government, as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state."

It can be made no more plain then that; in the proper context.

Most Respectfully,
R

From UN Security Council no. 46 of 17 April 1948


"Considering that, as stated in that resolution, it is of the utmost urgency to bring about the immediate cessation of acts of violence in Palestine and to establish conditions of peace and order in that country,"

S/RES/46 (1948)-S/723 of 17 April 1948

Continued moronic attempts at deligitimizing the rights of Christians and Muslims of Palestine hold little water. The UN itself cites Palestine as a country in the same paragraph. Being sovereign or not is another issue. Oppressive regimes with power can and will withhold sovereignty from peoples.

Once again you ignore the facts that are self evident, that the violence is coming mainly from the Palestinians and Israel is meeting that violence with retaliation. The numbers killed or injured are of no consequence in this matter as they are a result of the Palestinians disregard for human life, it is the frequency and number of such attacks that are paramount. So as all subsequent UN resolutions say the Palestinians have to cease all acts of belligerence and violence for there to be peace.

By the way the Palestinian people have exercised their right to free determination and claimed sovereignty over Palestine in 1988, a matter of historical fact. Just another of your ISLAMONAZI LIES laid to rest.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

It was still only a few percent.

By a few you mean how many percent and can you prove it with a link?

I am not the one making the claim that they were told to leave without posting any stats.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4r7ZjG9Nc]A PALESTINIAN MYTH - The so said NAKBA - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Phoenall]

From UN Security Council no. 46 of 17 April 1948


"Considering that, as stated in that resolution, it is of the utmost urgency to bring about the immediate cessation of acts of violence in Palestine and to establish conditions of peace and order in that country,"

S/RES/46 (1948)-S/723 of 17 April 1948

Continued moronic attempts at deligitimizing the rights of Christians and Muslims of Palestine hold little water. The UN itself cites Palestine as a country in the same paragraph. Being sovereign or not is another issue. Oppressive regimes with power can and will withhold sovereignty from peoples.

No one is trying to de legitimize anyone. We started this discussion about when Palestine became a sovereign state.
There is nothing you can say that will change the fact that Palestine became a 'Country' in 1988. End of story

Not the "end of story". Palestine was no different in 1988 than it was in 1948. It had no sovereignty in 1948 and had no sovereignty in 1988. It had sovereignty when it was the Latin Kingdom and limited sovereignty while under the Caliphate at different times.

NO IT DID NOT as it was a small part of a larger whole, so had no actual sovereignty of its own. If you bothered to do the research you would find that the Palestinians were given 3 nations under the mandate guided by the mandated powers of Britain and France. First was Syria that took up sovereignty followed by Lebanon and then trans Jordan, what was left was already agreed by all parties to be for the Jews to build a new homeland. The ISLAMONAZI grand mufti decided that he did not want the Jews living in Palestine so started to enflame the arab muslims with LIES and BLOOD LIBELS so they would demand the land for themselves. If he had been removed from liberty during WW2 then Israel would have received its promised land and the Palestinians would have been happy to stay or go.

Another history lesson for the pro Palestinians who will claim it is all Zionist lies.

 

[Phoenall]

It was still only a few percent.

By a few you mean how many percent and can you prove it with a link?

I am not the one making the claim that they were told to leave without posting any stats.

You are denying the historical facts of the issue and are coming out with falsehoods, now provide the evidence of your accusations or retract and apologise for getting it wrong.

By the way a creditable source of evidence is required not your usual islamonazi sources.