Boycott Israel

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, Challenger, et al,

Do you hear yourself?

The Palestinians had the right to oppose that.

They still have the right to oppose that.

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians have the right to oppose anything they want. And they must accept the consequences and outcomes. This too is part of the "Right of Self-Determination."

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."

There was no requirement that both must make an acceptance. The Jewish Provisional Government accepted their option and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their option.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why should the Palestinians accept an option presented by foreigners? The Palestinians have the right to choose their own options.

Only on their own lands which is not part of the Jewish NATIONal home. So time to pack your bags and go. As for an option presented by foriegners it does not seem to matter when the foriegners are other arab muslims does it, and that has been the majority of the cases over the last 100 years or so. Why do you trot out the same tired lame excuses that have no real meaning other than to twist and duck the reality of the situation. INTERNATIONAL LAWS SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE JEWS CLAIMS AND ACTIONS SO GET USED TO THEM

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, Challenger, et al,

Do you hear yourself?

The Palestinians had the right to oppose that.

They still have the right to oppose that.

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians have the right to oppose anything they want. And they must accept the consequences and outcomes. This too is part of the "Right of Self-Determination."

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."

There was no requirement that both must make an acceptance. The Jewish Provisional Government accepted their option and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their option.

Most Respectfully,
R

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."​

On the flipside, Israel cannot interfere in the rights of the Palestinians.

AND THEY HAVE NEVER DONE SO IN THE LAST 68 YEARS HAVE THEY, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU HINT THAT THEY HAVE. DEFENDING AGAINST ILLEGAL WEAPONS, INVASION OF LAND AND TERRORIST ATTACKS IS NOT INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIANS IS IT.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that they understand what New York did.

(COMMENT)

New York did NOT BlackList the BDS Movement. The BDS movement is still legal in NY.

The State is just divesting themselves from companies and organizations aligned with a Palestinian-backed boycott movement and religious discrimination against the Jewish State of Israel; and the authorized programs in Area "C" (fully approved by the PLO).

Just as it is entirely legal to run a BDS campaign agains the Jewish State of Israel, so to it is legal for NY to establish criteria in the opposite direction, opposing the action. The consequence of doing business.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, New York is punishing people and companies for having the "wrong" political opinions.

No it is punishing terrorist supporters, racists, nazi's, anti semites and other criminals breaking US laws. It is only your opinion that they are being punished for holding the wrong political opinions because that is your method of doing this

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is this your circular logic coming back.

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, Challenger, et al,

Do you hear yourself?

The Palestinians had the right to oppose that.

They still have the right to oppose that.

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians have the right to oppose anything they want. And they must accept the consequences and outcomes. This too is part of the "Right of Self-Determination."

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."

There was no requirement that both must make an acceptance. The Jewish Provisional Government accepted their option and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their option.

Most Respectfully,
R

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."​

On the flipside, Israel cannot interfere in the rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Going around in circles does not address the question. The Jewish Provisional Government acted in accordance with the UN Recommendations. The fact that the Arab League made a failed attempt to take be force the territory, and withhold the establishment of the Jewish National Home set the conditions for certain outcomes. These outcomes had certain consequences that the Arab Palestinians are just going to have to live with.

I'm not sure if the Jewish State of Israel has to do anything at all; assuming the Arab Palestinians continue to set the conditions for eace talks.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact that the Arab League made a failed attempt to take be force the territory,​

It is not "the territory," it is Palestine. Using the term "the territory" is purposefully misleading.

Using the term palestine as if the territory was a nation is also misleading and is racist. The territory is what it was called in 1923when the LoN drew up the mandate of palestine and split the territory into two parts. That is what it was called until the UN recognised the PLO ( terrorist organisation) and shortened the name to palestine.



STILL WAITING FOR THE LINK TO THE TREATY SETTING UP THE NATION OF PALESTINE PRIOR TO 1988

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WOW, is it really.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that they understand what New York did.

(COMMENT)

New York did NOT BlackList the BDS Movement. The BDS movement is still legal in NY.

The State is just divesting themselves from companies and organizations aligned with a Palestinian-backed boycott movement and religious discrimination against the Jewish State of Israel; and the authorized programs in Area "C" (fully approved by the PLO).

Just as it is entirely legal to run a BDS campaign agains the Jewish State of Israel, so to it is legal for NY to establish criteria in the opposite direction, opposing the action. The consequence of doing business.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, New York is punishing people and companies for having the "wrong" political opinions.

(COMMENT)

The State is not issuing a penalty at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

By what authority is a palestinian terrorist supporter dictating US law. She has no right or training to do so and should be dictating palestinian law to the P.A.

 

[P F Tinmore]

]P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just so full of crap.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is this your circular logic coming back.

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, Challenger, et al,

Do you hear yourself?

The Palestinians had the right to oppose that.

They still have the right to oppose that.

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians have the right to oppose anything they want. And they must accept the consequences and outcomes. This too is part of the "Right of Self-Determination."

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."

There was no requirement that both must make an acceptance. The Jewish Provisional Government accepted their option and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their option.

Most Respectfully,
R

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."​

On the flipside, Israel cannot interfere in the rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Going around in circles does not address the question. The Jewish Provisional Government acted in accordance with the UN Recommendations. The fact that the Arab League made a failed attempt to take be force the territory, and withhold the establishment of the Jewish National Home set the conditions for certain outcomes. These outcomes had certain consequences that the Arab Palestinians are just going to have to live with.

I'm not sure if the Jewish State of Israel has to do anything at all; assuming the Arab Palestinians continue to set the conditions for eace talks.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact that the Arab League made a failed attempt to take be force the territory,​

It is not "the territory," it is Palestine. Using the term "the territory" is purposefully misleading.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians get this wrong intentionally so that over time, people forget that "Palestine" (with hard boundaries) was defined by the Allied Powers; formally accepted in 1924.

Prior to the Treaty of Sevres, the term Palestine was nothing more than a Regional Name that extended across parts of several political sub-divisions of the Ottoman Empire. Those sub-divisions included the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem, the Sanjuk of Baaqa, Sanjuk of Acre, and the Sanjuk of Beriut (which made-up half of the Vilayet of Beriut, --- plus portions of the souther Vilayet of Syria.

In 1920, the region you are referring to was established by The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.

In 1922, the Order in Council (League of Nations) designated that "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." ("Palestine" was a short title for the Territory under the Mandate.)

On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. The Anglo-Trans-Jordan Treaty stipulated that Transjordan would be prepared for independence under the general supervision of the British high commissioner in Jerusalem, and recognized Emir Abdullah as head of state. In May 1925, the Aqaba and Ma’an districts of the Hijaz became part of Transjordan.

By 1988 the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

However, in 2012 (A/RES/67/19), when the UN "Reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." Notice, that the State of Palestine is equated to the territory occupied since 1967.

As you can see, the extent to which the territory was modified was considerable between the time of the Armistice of Mudros and when the transfer of territory from the sovereign Kingdom of the Hijaz was accomplished.

REBUTTAL: I could not agree more, the way you use the term "Palestine" is (sometime intentionally) misleading. I try to keep the terms in context to their meaning or designation.

I realize that what we can write here in this discussion could never compare to the 4 volumes, 2,500 pages, including 1 map box that contain all the details. But in no case, was there a Political Subdivision at anytime in the 20th Century known as "Palestine." Nor did the "Palestinian People have either "Title or Rights" to any sovereign territory.

Most Respectfully,
R​

But in no case, was there a Political Subdivision at anytime in the 20th Century known as "Palestine." Nor did the "Palestinian People have either "Title or Rights" to any sovereign territory.​

I believe your assessment is incorrect. Let's look at some facts.

• Palestine is a territory whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. It was called a successor state by several documents of the time. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate's own founding document.
• Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title and rights to the territory. They merely held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence.
• The Palestinians are the legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine. That is the criteria for the standard list of inherent, inalienable rights. No matter what rights others may have, or believe they have, there is one right they do not have. There is no right to violate the rights of others.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you are still making that same mistake.

​

• Palestine is a territory whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. It was called a successor state by several documents of the time. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate's own founding document.

(COMMENT)

The international border for Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate applied) was not mentioned even once in the Treaty of Lausanne. Nothing in the Armistice, Treaty of Sevres, of the Treaty of Lausanne, suggest a successor government beyond that assigned by the Allied Powers.

The use of the term "country" did not then (does not now) denote or connote sovereignty or independence.

There is nothing to suggest that the "Title and Rights" were passed on from the League of Nations (after the Mandate assignment) to some other entity; until the UN Trusteeship was established.

• Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title and rights to the territory. They merely held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic passed the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers; Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Allied Powers were a signatory to the Treaty, thus accepting the terms of the Treaty.

Just because you think that an acknowledgment is required beyond the terms and conditions of the treaty, does not mean that it is actually required.

WHERE is this cited in the Treaty? "held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence."

• The Palestinians are the legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine. That is the criteria for the standard list of inherent, inalienable rights. No matter what rights others may have, or believe they have, there is one right they do not have. There is no right to violate the rights of others.

(COMMENT)

The "legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine" (the territory to which the Mandate applied) ARE just that: inhabitance and citizens of the territory and under the nationality and citizenship directives acknowledge by the Allied Powers. You will note that both the nationality and citizenship criteria apply equally to the Arabs and Jews.

You are absolutely correct, the Government of Palestine (Mandate authority for the applicable territory) was the successor government. And the Arab Palestinians have no rights that trump the authority of the Allied Powers under Article 16.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

]P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just so full of crap.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is this your circular logic coming back.

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, Challenger, et al,

Do you hear yourself?

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians have the right to oppose anything they want. And they must accept the consequences and outcomes. This too is part of the "Right of Self-Determination."

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."

There was no requirement that both must make an acceptance. The Jewish Provisional Government accepted their option and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their option.

Most Respectfully,
R

HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians cannot stop, interfere or use force to prevent the Israelis from using their "Right of Self-Determination."​

On the flipside, Israel cannot interfere in the rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Going around in circles does not address the question. The Jewish Provisional Government acted in accordance with the UN Recommendations. The fact that the Arab League made a failed attempt to take be force the territory, and withhold the establishment of the Jewish National Home set the conditions for certain outcomes. These outcomes had certain consequences that the Arab Palestinians are just going to have to live with.

I'm not sure if the Jewish State of Israel has to do anything at all; assuming the Arab Palestinians continue to set the conditions for eace talks.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact that the Arab League made a failed attempt to take be force the territory,​

It is not "the territory," it is Palestine. Using the term "the territory" is purposefully misleading.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians get this wrong intentionally so that over time, people forget that "Palestine" (with hard boundaries) was defined by the Allied Powers; formally accepted in 1924.

Prior to the Treaty of Sevres, the term Palestine was nothing more than a Regional Name that extended across parts of several political sub-divisions of the Ottoman Empire. Those sub-divisions included the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem, the Sanjuk of Baaqa, Sanjuk of Acre, and the Sanjuk of Beriut (which made-up half of the Vilayet of Beriut, --- plus portions of the souther Vilayet of Syria.

In 1920, the region you are referring to was established by The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.

In 1922, the Order in Council (League of Nations) designated that "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." ("Palestine" was a short title for the Territory under the Mandate.)

On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. The Anglo-Trans-Jordan Treaty stipulated that Transjordan would be prepared for independence under the general supervision of the British high commissioner in Jerusalem, and recognized Emir Abdullah as head of state. In May 1925, the Aqaba and Ma’an districts of the Hijaz became part of Transjordan.

By 1988 the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

However, in 2012 (A/RES/67/19), when the UN "Reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." Notice, that the State of Palestine is equated to the territory occupied since 1967.

As you can see, the extent to which the territory was modified was considerable between the time of the Armistice of Mudros and when the transfer of territory from the sovereign Kingdom of the Hijaz was accomplished.

REBUTTAL: I could not agree more, the way you use the term "Palestine" is (sometime intentionally) misleading. I try to keep the terms in context to their meaning or designation.

I realize that what we can write here in this discussion could never compare to the 4 volumes, 2,500 pages, including 1 map box that contain all the details. But in no case, was there a Political Subdivision at anytime in the 20th Century known as "Palestine." Nor did the "Palestinian People have either "Title or Rights" to any sovereign territory.

Most Respectfully,
R​

But in no case, was there a Political Subdivision at anytime in the 20th Century known as "Palestine." Nor did the "Palestinian People have either "Title or Rights" to any sovereign territory.​

I believe your assessment is incorrect. Let's look at some facts.

• Palestine is a territory whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. It was called a successor state by several documents of the time. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate's own founding document.
• Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title and rights to the territory. They merely held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence.
• The Palestinians are the legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine. That is the criteria for the standard list of inherent, inalienable rights. No matter what rights others may have, or believe they have, there is one right they do not have. There is no right to violate the rights of others.

No links to support your claims I see, is this because there are none.

The borders were of the mandate of Palestine as spelt out very clearly in the minutes of the LoN meetings. So how about links to your claim that Palestine was called a successor state in any official documents. And then the links to official documents calling Palestine a country ?

As soon as they agreed the terms of the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne they claimed title and rights to the territory, it is all part and parcel of the international laws of the time#

The Palestinians also include the Jews and they did something about their status and exercised their rights. And you are trying to violate the rights of the Jews just because they are Jews and got in before the arab muslims even got out of bed.


Once again you make an absolute idiot of yourself by repeating the same old tired LIES because you have no concrete evidence of your fantasy world

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you are still making that same mistake.

​

• Palestine is a territory whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. It was called a successor state by several documents of the time. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate's own founding document.

(COMMENT)

The international border for Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate applied) was not mentioned even once in the Treaty of Lausanne. Nothing in the Armistice, Treaty of Sevres, of the Treaty of Lausanne, suggest a successor government beyond that assigned by the Allied Powers.

The use of the term "country" did not then (does not now) denote or connote sovereignty or independence.

There is nothing to suggest that the "Title and Rights" were passed on from the League of Nations (after the Mandate assignment) to some other entity; until the UN Trusteeship was established.

• Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title and rights to the territory. They merely held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic passed the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers; Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Allied Powers were a signatory to the Treaty, thus accepting the terms of the Treaty.

Just because you think that an acknowledgment is required beyond the terms and conditions of the treaty, does not mean that it is actually required.

WHERE is this cited in the Treaty? "held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence."

• The Palestinians are the legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine. That is the criteria for the standard list of inherent, inalienable rights. No matter what rights others may have, or believe they have, there is one right they do not have. There is no right to violate the rights of others.

(COMMENT)

The "legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine" (the territory to which the Mandate applied) ARE just that: inhabitance and citizens of the territory and under the nationality and citizenship directives acknowledge by the Allied Powers. You will note that both the nationality and citizenship criteria apply equally to the Arabs and Jews.

You are absolutely correct, the Government of Palestine (Mandate authority for the applicable territory) was the successor government. And the Arab Palestinians have no rights that trump the authority of the Allied Powers under Article 16.


Most Respectfully,
R

You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

 

[Hollie]

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you are still making that same mistake.

​

• Palestine is a territory whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. It was called a successor state by several documents of the time. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate's own founding document.

(COMMENT)

The international border for Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate applied) was not mentioned even once in the Treaty of Lausanne. Nothing in the Armistice, Treaty of Sevres, of the Treaty of Lausanne, suggest a successor government beyond that assigned by the Allied Powers.

The use of the term "country" did not then (does not now) denote or connote sovereignty or independence.

There is nothing to suggest that the "Title and Rights" were passed on from the League of Nations (after the Mandate assignment) to some other entity; until the UN Trusteeship was established.

• Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title and rights to the territory. They merely held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic passed the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers; Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Allied Powers were a signatory to the Treaty, thus accepting the terms of the Treaty.

Just because you think that an acknowledgment is required beyond the terms and conditions of the treaty, does not mean that it is actually required.

WHERE is this cited in the Treaty? "held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence."

• The Palestinians are the legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine. That is the criteria for the standard list of inherent, inalienable rights. No matter what rights others may have, or believe they have, there is one right they do not have. There is no right to violate the rights of others.

(COMMENT)

The "legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine" (the territory to which the Mandate applied) ARE just that: inhabitance and citizens of the territory and under the nationality and citizenship directives acknowledge by the Allied Powers. You will note that both the nationality and citizenship criteria apply equally to the Arabs and Jews.

You are absolutely correct, the Government of Palestine (Mandate authority for the applicable territory) was the successor government. And the Arab Palestinians have no rights that trump the authority of the Allied Powers under Article 16.


Most Respectfully,
R

You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

The many, varied explanations refuting your claim to some mythical place you call Pal'istan and you're still utterly befuddled?

 

[Phoenall]

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you are still making that same mistake.

​

• Palestine is a territory whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. It was called a successor state by several documents of the time. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate's own founding document.

(COMMENT)

The international border for Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate applied) was not mentioned even once in the Treaty of Lausanne. Nothing in the Armistice, Treaty of Sevres, of the Treaty of Lausanne, suggest a successor government beyond that assigned by the Allied Powers.

The use of the term "country" did not then (does not now) denote or connote sovereignty or independence.

There is nothing to suggest that the "Title and Rights" were passed on from the League of Nations (after the Mandate assignment) to some other entity; until the UN Trusteeship was established.

• Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title and rights to the territory. They merely held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic passed the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers; Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Allied Powers were a signatory to the Treaty, thus accepting the terms of the Treaty.

Just because you think that an acknowledgment is required beyond the terms and conditions of the treaty, does not mean that it is actually required.

WHERE is this cited in the Treaty? "held that territory in trust for the inhabitants and were to assist those inhabitants to independence."

• The Palestinians are the legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine. That is the criteria for the standard list of inherent, inalienable rights. No matter what rights others may have, or believe they have, there is one right they do not have. There is no right to violate the rights of others.

(COMMENT)

The "legal inhabitants and the legal citizens of Palestine" (the territory to which the Mandate applied) ARE just that: inhabitance and citizens of the territory and under the nationality and citizenship directives acknowledge by the Allied Powers. You will note that both the nationality and citizenship criteria apply equally to the Arabs and Jews.

You are absolutely correct, the Government of Palestine (Mandate authority for the applicable territory) was the successor government. And the Arab Palestinians have no rights that trump the authority of the Allied Powers under Article 16.


Most Respectfully,
R

You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

Only in your fantasy world where anything that tells the truth about the palestinians is propaganda.

As you have been shown it was the British mandate that was the temporarily assigned administration. The mandate of palestine was a legal treaty that granted land to the Jews and the arab muslims. Strange how you dont complain about the mandate when it says that the arab muslims can ban non muslims from living in the arab muslim section yet you whinge when it is pointed out that the Jews can do the same in the Jewish sector.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure what you expect as "proof."

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.
You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

(COMMENT)

First, let's get one thing straight. I never claimed the the authority over the territory (the Mandate 1920-1948) was not temporary. I challenged the notion that it was temporary in the name of the Palestinians as a future sovereign power. If you go back to Posting #1058, you will see that the meaning or definition of "Palestine" is NOT immutable as you would have us believe. NO, in fact it changes over time subject to the application in which it is use. Nowhere is that more obvious that in the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

The Mandates over Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the Mandatory Power did have certain obligations on behalf of the territory and the people. With prior approval from the League Council, the Mandatory Power had to follow the general international conventions already existing or which may be concluded into the future; which addressed certain areas of League Council concern:

• slave traffic,
• traffic in arms and ammunition,
• traffic in drugs,
• commercial equality,
• freedom of land, air sea transit and navigation,
• postal, telegraphic and wireless communications, or
• literary and artistic ethics
• industrial property.
​

Specifically included into the Mandate were the two main requirements to cover the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine; not focused exclusively on the Arab Population.

In comparison to the other regional Mandates, the Mandate for Palestine, had imbedded within it, a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration;" this being (of course) the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This included the development of self-governing institutions.

It cannot be over emphasized that The "A" Mandates differ appreciably in the attention to the inhabitants which reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions. In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.

(THE ISSUE HERE)

Q: Was the just a Mandate a temporarily assigned administration?

NO! While that was a characteristic of a Mandate in General, it was not the focus.

§ The mission of the developing their capacity to autonomous governing,
§ Establishing their economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
​

(HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM YOUR IMPLICATION)

Your hypothesis was focused on the temporal aspect: "just a temporarily assigned administration.." But the reality - the duration was not based on a "time element" (clock or discharge date) --- but rather --- was established under a very definite "performance based" criteria.

IF the inhabitance where not capable of autonomous governing,
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF the inhabitance had not managed to install the economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The entire population of the territory (West of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate Applied (Order in Council) (which included both the indigenous Arabs, the various Bedouin components, the Druids, and the Jewish immigrant) was of one nationality and citizenship (as outlined by the orders from the Council). So in this regard, "rights" --- each component was equal.

(ONE MORE THING)

Probably as much as anyone, have made a vaiant attempt to reference or give some sort of attribution to almost every major point in argument in this discussion group. I apologize in that I cannot, as you so often do, prove a negative. I cannot (for instance) prove that there either is f is not the ghost of "Palestine" lurking someplace in the Middle East. I can tell you where the "State of Palestine" is in terms of recognition, or I can tell you what the meaning of "Palestine " is in the UN System. But I cannot provide any evidence on who - what - where or when the Arab Palestinians acquired the Title and Rights to any landscape between the Armistice of Mudros and the PLO Declaration of Indenpence (1988) (Posting #45); nor any ghost sovereign entity implied by your idea that the Sovereignty of Palestine was somehow established or its phantom government (The Government of Palestine refers to the British Mandate authority).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SAYIT]

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.

Is there (or can there be) anything funnier (or more hypocritical) than TinHorn complaining about propaganda pimps?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure what you expect as "proof."

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.
You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

(COMMENT)

First, let's get one thing straight. I never claimed the the authority over the territory (the Mandate 1920-1948) was not temporary. I challenged the notion that it was temporary in the name of the Palestinians as a future sovereign power. If you go back to Posting #1058, you will see that the meaning or definition of "Palestine" is NOT immutable as you would have us believe. NO, in fact it changes over time subject to the application in which it is use. Nowhere is that more obvious that in the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

The Mandates over Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the Mandatory Power did have certain obligations on behalf of the territory and the people. With prior approval from the League Council, the Mandatory Power had to follow the general international conventions already existing or which may be concluded into the future; which addressed certain areas of League Council concern:

• slave traffic,
• traffic in arms and ammunition,
• traffic in drugs,
• commercial equality,
• freedom of land, air sea transit and navigation,
• postal, telegraphic and wireless communications, or
• literary and artistic ethics
• industrial property.
​

Specifically included into the Mandate were the two main requirements to cover the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine; not focused exclusively on the Arab Population.

In comparison to the other regional Mandates, the Mandate for Palestine, had imbedded within it, a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration;" this being (of course) the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This included the development of self-governing institutions.

It cannot be over emphasized that The "A" Mandates differ appreciably in the attention to the inhabitants which reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions. In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.

(THE ISSUE HERE)

Q: Was the just a Mandate a temporarily assigned administration?

NO! While that was a characteristic of a Mandate in General, it was not the focus.

§ The mission of the developing their capacity to autonomous governing,
§ Establishing their economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
​

(HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM YOUR IMPLICATION)

Your hypothesis was focused on the temporal aspect: "just a temporarily assigned administration.." But the reality - the duration was not based on a "time element" (clock or discharge date) --- but rather --- was established under a very definite "performance based" criteria.

IF the inhabitance where not capable of autonomous governing,
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF the inhabitance had not managed to install the economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The entire population of the territory (West of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate Applied (Order in Council) (which included both the indigenous Arabs, the various Bedouin components, the Druids, and the Jewish immigrant) was of one nationality and citizenship (as outlined by the orders from the Council). So in this regard, "rights" --- each component was equal.

(ONE MORE THING)

Probably as much as anyone, have made a vaiant attempt to reference or give some sort of attribution to almost every major point in argument in this discussion group. I apologize in that I cannot, as you so often do, prove a negative. I cannot (for instance) prove that there either is f is not the ghost of "Palestine" lurking someplace in the Middle East. I can tell you where the "State of Palestine" is in terms of recognition, or I can tell you what the meaning of "Palestine " is in the UN System. But I cannot provide any evidence on who - what - where or when the Arab Palestinians acquired the Title and Rights to any landscape between the Armistice of Mudros and the PLO Declaration of Indenpence (1988) (Posting #45); nor any ghost sovereign entity implied by your idea that the Sovereignty of Palestine was somehow established or its phantom government (The Government of Palestine refers to the British Mandate authority).

Most Respectfully,
R

In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.​

This is the big lie. The Mandate refused the Palestinian's right to govern themselves. Any attempt to government themselves was met with military force. The only option left open to the Palestinians was to accept a back seat position in the British/Zionist colonial project.

No people in the world would accept such a position.

The Palestinians are no exception. They still reject the colonization of Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure what you expect as "proof."

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.
You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

(COMMENT)

First, let's get one thing straight. I never claimed the the authority over the territory (the Mandate 1920-1948) was not temporary. I challenged the notion that it was temporary in the name of the Palestinians as a future sovereign power. If you go back to Posting #1058, you will see that the meaning or definition of "Palestine" is NOT immutable as you would have us believe. NO, in fact it changes over time subject to the application in which it is use. Nowhere is that more obvious that in the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

The Mandates over Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the Mandatory Power did have certain obligations on behalf of the territory and the people. With prior approval from the League Council, the Mandatory Power had to follow the general international conventions already existing or which may be concluded into the future; which addressed certain areas of League Council concern:

• slave traffic,
• traffic in arms and ammunition,
• traffic in drugs,
• commercial equality,
• freedom of land, air sea transit and navigation,
• postal, telegraphic and wireless communications, or
• literary and artistic ethics
• industrial property.
​

Specifically included into the Mandate were the two main requirements to cover the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine; not focused exclusively on the Arab Population.

In comparison to the other regional Mandates, the Mandate for Palestine, had imbedded within it, a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration;" this being (of course) the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This included the development of self-governing institutions.

It cannot be over emphasized that The "A" Mandates differ appreciably in the attention to the inhabitants which reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions. In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.

(THE ISSUE HERE)

Q: Was the just a Mandate a temporarily assigned administration?

NO! While that was a characteristic of a Mandate in General, it was not the focus.

§ The mission of the developing their capacity to autonomous governing,
§ Establishing their economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
​

(HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM YOUR IMPLICATION)

Your hypothesis was focused on the temporal aspect: "just a temporarily assigned administration.." But the reality - the duration was not based on a "time element" (clock or discharge date) --- but rather --- was established under a very definite "performance based" criteria.

IF the inhabitance where not capable of autonomous governing,
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF the inhabitance had not managed to install the economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The entire population of the territory (West of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate Applied (Order in Council) (which included both the indigenous Arabs, the various Bedouin components, the Druids, and the Jewish immigrant) was of one nationality and citizenship (as outlined by the orders from the Council). So in this regard, "rights" --- each component was equal.

(ONE MORE THING)

Probably as much as anyone, have made a vaiant attempt to reference or give some sort of attribution to almost every major point in argument in this discussion group. I apologize in that I cannot, as you so often do, prove a negative. I cannot (for instance) prove that there either is f is not the ghost of "Palestine" lurking someplace in the Middle East. I can tell you where the "State of Palestine" is in terms of recognition, or I can tell you what the meaning of "Palestine " is in the UN System. But I cannot provide any evidence on who - what - where or when the Arab Palestinians acquired the Title and Rights to any landscape between the Armistice of Mudros and the PLO Declaration of Indenpence (1988) (Posting #45); nor any ghost sovereign entity implied by your idea that the Sovereignty of Palestine was somehow established or its phantom government (The Government of Palestine refers to the British Mandate authority).

Most Respectfully,
R

In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.​

This is the big lie. The Mandate refused the Palestinian's right to govern themselves. Any attempt to government themselves was met with military force. The only option left open to the Palestinians was to accept a back seat position in the British/Zionist colonial project.

No people in the world would accept such a position.

The Palestinians are no exception. They still reject the colonization of Palestine.

In terms of the number of times the above has been addressed for you, do we attribute your befuddlement to a learning disability?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure what you expect as "proof."

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.
You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

(COMMENT)

First, let's get one thing straight. I never claimed the the authority over the territory (the Mandate 1920-1948) was not temporary. I challenged the notion that it was temporary in the name of the Palestinians as a future sovereign power. If you go back to Posting #1058, you will see that the meaning or definition of "Palestine" is NOT immutable as you would have us believe. NO, in fact it changes over time subject to the application in which it is use. Nowhere is that more obvious that in the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

The Mandates over Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the Mandatory Power did have certain obligations on behalf of the territory and the people. With prior approval from the League Council, the Mandatory Power had to follow the general international conventions already existing or which may be concluded into the future; which addressed certain areas of League Council concern:

• slave traffic,
• traffic in arms and ammunition,
• traffic in drugs,
• commercial equality,
• freedom of land, air sea transit and navigation,
• postal, telegraphic and wireless communications, or
• literary and artistic ethics
• industrial property.
​

Specifically included into the Mandate were the two main requirements to cover the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine; not focused exclusively on the Arab Population.

In comparison to the other regional Mandates, the Mandate for Palestine, had imbedded within it, a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration;" this being (of course) the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This included the development of self-governing institutions.

It cannot be over emphasized that The "A" Mandates differ appreciably in the attention to the inhabitants which reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions. In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.

(THE ISSUE HERE)

Q: Was the just a Mandate a temporarily assigned administration?

NO! While that was a characteristic of a Mandate in General, it was not the focus.

§ The mission of the developing their capacity to autonomous governing,
§ Establishing their economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
​

(HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM YOUR IMPLICATION)

Your hypothesis was focused on the temporal aspect: "just a temporarily assigned administration.." But the reality - the duration was not based on a "time element" (clock or discharge date) --- but rather --- was established under a very definite "performance based" criteria.

IF the inhabitance where not capable of autonomous governing,
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF the inhabitance had not managed to install the economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The entire population of the territory (West of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate Applied (Order in Council) (which included both the indigenous Arabs, the various Bedouin components, the Druids, and the Jewish immigrant) was of one nationality and citizenship (as outlined by the orders from the Council). So in this regard, "rights" --- each component was equal.

(ONE MORE THING)

Probably as much as anyone, have made a vaiant attempt to reference or give some sort of attribution to almost every major point in argument in this discussion group. I apologize in that I cannot, as you so often do, prove a negative. I cannot (for instance) prove that there either is f is not the ghost of "Palestine" lurking someplace in the Middle East. I can tell you where the "State of Palestine" is in terms of recognition, or I can tell you what the meaning of "Palestine " is in the UN System. But I cannot provide any evidence on who - what - where or when the Arab Palestinians acquired the Title and Rights to any landscape between the Armistice of Mudros and the PLO Declaration of Indenpence (1988) (Posting #45); nor any ghost sovereign entity implied by your idea that the Sovereignty of Palestine was somehow established or its phantom government (The Government of Palestine refers to the British Mandate authority).

Most Respectfully,
R

In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.​

This is the big lie. The Mandate refused the Palestinian's right to govern themselves. Any attempt to government themselves was met with military force. The only option left open to the Palestinians was to accept a back seat position in the British/Zionist colonial project.

No people in the world would accept such a position.

The Palestinians are no exception. They still reject the colonization of Palestine.

In terms of the number of times the above has been addressed for you, do we attribute your befuddlement to a learning disability?

No part of my post has been prove false.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure what you expect as "proof."

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.
You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

(COMMENT)

First, let's get one thing straight. I never claimed the the authority over the territory (the Mandate 1920-1948) was not temporary. I challenged the notion that it was temporary in the name of the Palestinians as a future sovereign power. If you go back to Posting #1058, you will see that the meaning or definition of "Palestine" is NOT immutable as you would have us believe. NO, in fact it changes over time subject to the application in which it is use. Nowhere is that more obvious that in the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

The Mandates over Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the Mandatory Power did have certain obligations on behalf of the territory and the people. With prior approval from the League Council, the Mandatory Power had to follow the general international conventions already existing or which may be concluded into the future; which addressed certain areas of League Council concern:

• slave traffic,
• traffic in arms and ammunition,
• traffic in drugs,
• commercial equality,
• freedom of land, air sea transit and navigation,
• postal, telegraphic and wireless communications, or
• literary and artistic ethics
• industrial property.
​

Specifically included into the Mandate were the two main requirements to cover the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine; not focused exclusively on the Arab Population.

In comparison to the other regional Mandates, the Mandate for Palestine, had imbedded within it, a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration;" this being (of course) the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This included the development of self-governing institutions.

It cannot be over emphasized that The "A" Mandates differ appreciably in the attention to the inhabitants which reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions. In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.

(THE ISSUE HERE)

Q: Was the just a Mandate a temporarily assigned administration?

NO! While that was a characteristic of a Mandate in General, it was not the focus.

§ The mission of the developing their capacity to autonomous governing,
§ Establishing their economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
​

(HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM YOUR IMPLICATION)

Your hypothesis was focused on the temporal aspect: "just a temporarily assigned administration.." But the reality - the duration was not based on a "time element" (clock or discharge date) --- but rather --- was established under a very definite "performance based" criteria.

IF the inhabitance where not capable of autonomous governing,
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF the inhabitance had not managed to install the economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The entire population of the territory (West of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate Applied (Order in Council) (which included both the indigenous Arabs, the various Bedouin components, the Druids, and the Jewish immigrant) was of one nationality and citizenship (as outlined by the orders from the Council). So in this regard, "rights" --- each component was equal.

(ONE MORE THING)

Probably as much as anyone, have made a vaiant attempt to reference or give some sort of attribution to almost every major point in argument in this discussion group. I apologize in that I cannot, as you so often do, prove a negative. I cannot (for instance) prove that there either is f is not the ghost of "Palestine" lurking someplace in the Middle East. I can tell you where the "State of Palestine" is in terms of recognition, or I can tell you what the meaning of "Palestine " is in the UN System. But I cannot provide any evidence on who - what - where or when the Arab Palestinians acquired the Title and Rights to any landscape between the Armistice of Mudros and the PLO Declaration of Indenpence (1988) (Posting #45); nor any ghost sovereign entity implied by your idea that the Sovereignty of Palestine was somehow established or its phantom government (The Government of Palestine refers to the British Mandate authority).

Most Respectfully,
R

In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.​

This is the big lie. The Mandate refused the Palestinian's right to govern themselves. Any attempt to government themselves was met with military force. The only option left open to the Palestinians was to accept a back seat position in the British/Zionist colonial project.

No people in the world would accept such a position.

The Palestinians are no exception. They still reject the colonization of Palestine.

In terms of the number of times the above has been addressed for you, do we attribute your befuddlement to a learning disability?

No part of my post has been prove false.

It has, multiple times.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure what you expect as "proof."

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.
You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

(COMMENT)

First, let's get one thing straight. I never claimed the the authority over the territory (the Mandate 1920-1948) was not temporary. I challenged the notion that it was temporary in the name of the Palestinians as a future sovereign power. If you go back to Posting #1058, you will see that the meaning or definition of "Palestine" is NOT immutable as you would have us believe. NO, in fact it changes over time subject to the application in which it is use. Nowhere is that more obvious that in the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

The Mandates over Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the Mandatory Power did have certain obligations on behalf of the territory and the people. With prior approval from the League Council, the Mandatory Power had to follow the general international conventions already existing or which may be concluded into the future; which addressed certain areas of League Council concern:

• slave traffic,
• traffic in arms and ammunition,
• traffic in drugs,
• commercial equality,
• freedom of land, air sea transit and navigation,
• postal, telegraphic and wireless communications, or
• literary and artistic ethics
• industrial property.
​

Specifically included into the Mandate were the two main requirements to cover the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine; not focused exclusively on the Arab Population.

In comparison to the other regional Mandates, the Mandate for Palestine, had imbedded within it, a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration;" this being (of course) the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This included the development of self-governing institutions.

It cannot be over emphasized that The "A" Mandates differ appreciably in the attention to the inhabitants which reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions. In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.

(THE ISSUE HERE)

Q: Was the just a Mandate a temporarily assigned administration?

NO! While that was a characteristic of a Mandate in General, it was not the focus.

§ The mission of the developing their capacity to autonomous governing,
§ Establishing their economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
​

(HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM YOUR IMPLICATION)

Your hypothesis was focused on the temporal aspect: "just a temporarily assigned administration.." But the reality - the duration was not based on a "time element" (clock or discharge date) --- but rather --- was established under a very definite "performance based" criteria.

IF the inhabitance where not capable of autonomous governing,
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF the inhabitance had not managed to install the economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The entire population of the territory (West of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate Applied (Order in Council) (which included both the indigenous Arabs, the various Bedouin components, the Druids, and the Jewish immigrant) was of one nationality and citizenship (as outlined by the orders from the Council). So in this regard, "rights" --- each component was equal.

(ONE MORE THING)

Probably as much as anyone, have made a vaiant attempt to reference or give some sort of attribution to almost every major point in argument in this discussion group. I apologize in that I cannot, as you so often do, prove a negative. I cannot (for instance) prove that there either is f is not the ghost of "Palestine" lurking someplace in the Middle East. I can tell you where the "State of Palestine" is in terms of recognition, or I can tell you what the meaning of "Palestine " is in the UN System. But I cannot provide any evidence on who - what - where or when the Arab Palestinians acquired the Title and Rights to any landscape between the Armistice of Mudros and the PLO Declaration of Indenpence (1988) (Posting #45); nor any ghost sovereign entity implied by your idea that the Sovereignty of Palestine was somehow established or its phantom government (The Government of Palestine refers to the British Mandate authority).

Most Respectfully,
R

In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.​

This is the big lie. The Mandate refused the Palestinian's right to govern themselves. Any attempt to government themselves was met with military force. The only option left open to the Palestinians was to accept a back seat position in the British/Zionist colonial project.

No people in the world would accept such a position.

The Palestinians are no exception. They still reject the colonization of Palestine.

EVIDENCE as we all know you are quite capable of postimng these LIES without any support. You forget that the LoN had given the "palestinians" 78% of palestine and gave in to their demands that it be Juden Frie, which meant they should have moved there and been happy with their lot. It was the Jews that were forced into the back seat position by the British and the arabs who wanted to see the Jews wiped out once and for all.
They accepted the partition of palestine when it suited them, and once it didnt they rejected it. They had no legal cause to complain after losing the land to the LoN in the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne.

The colonisers of palestine are the arab muslims that call themselves palestinians, and they would renounce their ties if they were offered land elsewhere.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure what you expect as "proof."

You are still pimping Israeli propaganda.
You are going through all these monkey motions to say that the Mandate was Palestine not just a temporarily assigned administration. All I see is say so without any proof that that is the case.

(COMMENT)

First, let's get one thing straight. I never claimed the the authority over the territory (the Mandate 1920-1948) was not temporary. I challenged the notion that it was temporary in the name of the Palestinians as a future sovereign power. If you go back to Posting #1058, you will see that the meaning or definition of "Palestine" is NOT immutable as you would have us believe. NO, in fact it changes over time subject to the application in which it is use. Nowhere is that more obvious that in the UN system designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as "Palestine" in A/RES/43/177 wherein it said: "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system.

The Mandates over Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the Mandatory Power did have certain obligations on behalf of the territory and the people. With prior approval from the League Council, the Mandatory Power had to follow the general international conventions already existing or which may be concluded into the future; which addressed certain areas of League Council concern:

• slave traffic,
• traffic in arms and ammunition,
• traffic in drugs,
• commercial equality,
• freedom of land, air sea transit and navigation,
• postal, telegraphic and wireless communications, or
• literary and artistic ethics
• industrial property.
​

Specifically included into the Mandate were the two main requirements to cover the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine; not focused exclusively on the Arab Population.

In comparison to the other regional Mandates, the Mandate for Palestine, had imbedded within it, a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration;" this being (of course) the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This included the development of self-governing institutions.

It cannot be over emphasized that The "A" Mandates differ appreciably in the attention to the inhabitants which reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions. In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.

(THE ISSUE HERE)

Q: Was the just a Mandate a temporarily assigned administration?

NO! While that was a characteristic of a Mandate in General, it was not the focus.

§ The mission of the developing their capacity to autonomous governing,
§ Establishing their economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
​

(HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM YOUR IMPLICATION)

Your hypothesis was focused on the temporal aspect: "just a temporarily assigned administration.." But the reality - the duration was not based on a "time element" (clock or discharge date) --- but rather --- was established under a very definite "performance based" criteria.

IF the inhabitance where not capable of autonomous governing,
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF the inhabitance had not managed to install the economic and social systems necessary to support an independent nation.
THEN the Administration of the Mandate would continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The entire population of the territory (West of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate Applied (Order in Council) (which included both the indigenous Arabs, the various Bedouin components, the Druids, and the Jewish immigrant) was of one nationality and citizenship (as outlined by the orders from the Council). So in this regard, "rights" --- each component was equal.

(ONE MORE THING)

Probably as much as anyone, have made a vaiant attempt to reference or give some sort of attribution to almost every major point in argument in this discussion group. I apologize in that I cannot, as you so often do, prove a negative. I cannot (for instance) prove that there either is f is not the ghost of "Palestine" lurking someplace in the Middle East. I can tell you where the "State of Palestine" is in terms of recognition, or I can tell you what the meaning of "Palestine " is in the UN System. But I cannot provide any evidence on who - what - where or when the Arab Palestinians acquired the Title and Rights to any landscape between the Armistice of Mudros and the PLO Declaration of Indenpence (1988) (Posting #45); nor any ghost sovereign entity implied by your idea that the Sovereignty of Palestine was somehow established or its phantom government (The Government of Palestine refers to the British Mandate authority).

Most Respectfully,
R

In this regard, the mission of the UK in the Administration of the Mandate consisted mainly in developing their capacity to govern themselves; which the Arabs of Palestine consistently refused to become involved with during the entire time of the Mandate Administration.​

This is the big lie. The Mandate refused the Palestinian's right to govern themselves. Any attempt to government themselves was met with military force. The only option left open to the Palestinians was to accept a back seat position in the British/Zionist colonial project.

No people in the world would accept such a position.

The Palestinians are no exception. They still reject the colonization of Palestine.

In terms of the number of times the above has been addressed for you, do we attribute your befuddlement to a learning disability?

No part of my post has been prove false.

Only because you refuse to read the replies and think that this will do.

EVERY PART OF YOUR MANY POSTS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND TORN UP INTO LITTLE PIECES BEFORE YOUR EYES BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH. YOU CANT USE INTERNATIONAL LAWS RETROSPECTIVELY UNLESS YOU ACCEPT THEM BEING USED AGAINST YOU AS WELL.

 

[Challenger]

Ali Abunimah: NY Governor Blacklists BDS to Defend Israeli Apartheid

Who should know better than someone who actually lived in South Africa?
.

Is Israel an apartheid state? | Opinion

I'd sooner believe Bishop Desmond Tutu, rather than a Zionist apologist.

The Rev. Hedding would disagree with Tutu. He happened to be a young minister in South Africa who fought Apartheid himself so he certainly is in a position to compare what happened there and what is happening in Israel.

Israel and the Charge of Apartheid

Hedding is a Christian Zionist and apologist for Zionist Israel, associated with organisations such "Christian Action for Israel" and the "International Christian Embassy Jerusalem" so no surprise his "opinion" has been crafted by the Hasbara machine.