BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...

[P F Tinmore]

It was territory that transitioned from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the complete administration of the Allied Power.

Administration not ownership. Administrators do not have 100% free hand. They must follow rules like not violating the rights of the people.

 

[theliq]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ theliq, et al,

I'm not sure I understand what this means.

But NOT FOR ILLEGAL ZIONIST TRASH "R" you ease the Illegals in as if they have rights...they were all Synthetics who adhered to the Zionist Cult.....Not Real Jews at all......Israel is Full of NON-JEWS who have NO right to be there..st

(COMMENT)

[Article 2(7)] Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

Israel has the right to administer it laws; and immigration policy.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am/was talking pre 1948 R.They NEVER had any Authority at all,what are you saying,that they did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..st

 

[theliq]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

For more than a century it has been understood that it is the right of "ALL" people to determine their own future. That future includes the political status and independence.

There is no reason for the Arab Palestinian to suggest that they belong to a particular regional class of people that is superior to the Jewish People, and that greater international community should grant dominate, control, and allow the Arab Palestinian to subjugate the Jewish People.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine. That gave them the same rights as any of the citizens of their countries anyplace.

The native Jews became citizens also without distinction.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians and the Jewish immigrants where all granted citizenship under the same authority.

The territory was not sovereign to either group (Arab or Jewish); but former Ottoman Territory. Renounced by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - the treaty stipulated that the future of these territories to be settled by the parties concerned. While many believe that by virtue of cultural/ethnic tenure to the territory, the Arab Palestinians had some special privileged to the land; and the subjugation and control over the Jewish Minority (Oppression of the Minority).

Almost immediately, the territory east of the Jordan River became dedicated to the Hashemites [in the blood relation to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)] as an Emirate (semi-autonomous).

There is no question that the Rights to Sovereignty and Independence. But the Rights of the Arab do not take precedence over the rights of the Jewish People who's immigration was predicated on the 1920 determination by the Allied Powers, having agreed, should move forward with the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home → "for the Jewish people."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are forgetting that the Immigration policy was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against the wishes of the people. This was a violation of the Palestinian's right to self determination without external interference.

You are not understanding that the Arabs-Moslems never even managed to take preliminary steps toward the most basic elements of self-determination and sovereignty.

I’m seeing your endless accusations aimed at Jews to explain every selfinflicted error, pratfall and bad decision made by Arabs-Moslems.

Not true. Every attempt the Palestinians made toward self determination was crushed by Britain's military.

The British Military Administration at the time was run by a Zionist...FACT...st

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

There are 13 Arabs in the Israeli Knesset. No apartheid.

 

[theliq]

There are 13 Arabs in the Israeli Knesset. No apartheid.

Huh.....It depends on your Version of Apartheid BUT Apartheid it is...What is it with you Zionist Terrorists that you think BLACK IS WHITE?????? or PINK IS BLUE

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

There are 13 Arabs in the Israeli Knesset. No apartheid.

Huh.....It depends on your Version of Apartheid BUT Apartheid it is

What are you doing to divide the land equitably with the Aborigines?

 

[theliq]

There are 13 Arabs in the Israeli Knesset. No apartheid.

Huh.....It depends on your Version of Apartheid BUT Apartheid it is

What are you doing to divide the land equitably with the Aborigines?

If you knew anything about Australia you would know...Quite A Lot....HOW IS PALESTINE thesedays.....still drenched in Palestinian BLOOD....F OFF YOU IDIOT ZIONIST SYNTHETIC TERRORIST

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

There are 13 Arabs in the Israeli Knesset. No apartheid.

Huh.....It depends on your Version of Apartheid BUT Apartheid it is

What are you doing to divide the land equitably with the Aborigines?

If you knew anything about Australia you would know...Quite A Lot....HOW IS PALESTINE thesedays.....still drenched in Palestinian BLOOD....F OFF YOU IDIOT ZIONIST SYNTHETIC TERRORIST

Let's debate and see who's the idiot -- you in?

 

[theliq]

There are 13 Arabs in the Israeli Knesset. No apartheid.

Huh.....It depends on your Version of Apartheid BUT Apartheid it is

What are you doing to divide the land equitably with the Aborigines?

If you knew anything about Australia you would know...Quite A Lot....HOW IS PALESTINE thesedays.....still drenched in Palestinian BLOOD....F OFF YOU IDIOT ZIONIST SYNTHETIC TERRORIST

Let's debate and see who's the idiot -- you in?

Fcuk Yes.....Now to keep you going until the next combat.....just to REMIND YOU OF THE INNOCENT PALESTINIAN BLOOD... ZIONIST TRASH ARE UP TO THEIR TERORIST NECKS IN....IE YOU



PLAY LOUDLY,YOU BOASTING PHARISEE,YOU'LL NEVER CONQUER ME

 

[RoccoR]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot have it both ways...

Not only did the Arab Palestinians not take responsibility for any of this critical institutions; but refused to join in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians were required to sign onto the settler colonial project before they were allowed to participate.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians cannot complain that they had no control over immigration policy (or any other aspect of governance) if they failed to adapt to Article 22 LON Covenant. ("that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources,")

There is no question that at every major decision point for the Arab Palestinians, they shot themselves in the foot; and continue to do so in the vain hope that they will be able to recover what they lost through ineptitude.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well...... This is not exactly true; or rather a conflicted truth.

It was territory that transitioned from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the complete administration of the Allied Power.

Administration not ownership. Administrators do not have 100% free hand. They must follow rules like not violating the rights of the people.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate granted the Mandatory full powers of legislation (law making) and of administration (governmental control), within the terms of the mandate.

Decisions, outside the terms of the Mandate, was subject to pre-approval by the Council of the League.

In 1922, the only rights under international scrutiny were the "civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

Within the membership of the League (alla 1919), the general understanding of what was meant by "civil and religious rights;" and were not codified. In the post-War years immediately followed by the The Treaty of Versailles Treaty and The Treaty of Lausanne (1923), there was no consensus regarding the accepted principles of human rights, while discussed in bits and pieces even in a time before the American and British conflict (1812), lengthy discussions - even after WWII - failed to achieve the status of International Law in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights (1945). Even the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) did not enter into force until 1976. So, one must ask what (specifically) is meant by "rules like not violating the rights of the people."

•• What constitutes a "right?"
•• What constitutes a violation of that "right?"​

Much of what the Arab Palestinians claim as a right or a violation either did not exist • or • were not defined until the mid-1970's; well after the Arab surprise attack of the Yom Kipper War. And more than a decade before the Declaration of Independence (1988) by the PLO. And in 1988, the Arab Palestinians/PLO did not have sovereign or effective control over any territory. And no one interfered with the PLO Declaration.

Today, the 1948 Israeli War of Independence is over. The War with Egypt ended in 1979, and the War with the Jordanians ended in 1994. Between these two treaties, without prejudice to the status of the Arab Palestinians, the Armistice Lines around the West Bank collapsed into the Jordan River and Dead Sea; and the Armistice Lines around the Gaza Strip collapsed into the Egyptian Border.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are 13 Arabs in the Israeli Knesset. No apartheid.

How many times have they proposed legislation that became law?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot have it both ways...

Not only did the Arab Palestinians not take responsibility for any of this critical institutions; but refused to join in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians were required to sign onto the settler colonial project before they were allowed to participate.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians cannot complain that they had no control over immigration policy (or any other aspect of governance) if they failed to adapt to Article 22 LON Covenant. ("that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources,")

There is no question that at every major decision point for the Arab Palestinians, they shot themselves in the foot; and continue to do so in the vain hope that they will be able to recover what they lost through ineptitude.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was the British that did not follow Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. That is why after three decades of the Mandate, Britain failed to create a representative government.

 

[Hollie]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot have it both ways...

Not only did the Arab Palestinians not take responsibility for any of this critical institutions; but refused to join in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians were required to sign onto the settler colonial project before they were allowed to participate.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians cannot complain that they had no control over immigration policy (or any other aspect of governance) if they failed to adapt to Article 22 LON Covenant. ("that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources,")

There is no question that at every major decision point for the Arab Palestinians, they shot themselves in the foot; and continue to do so in the vain hope that they will be able to recover what they lost through ineptitude.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was the British that did not follow Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. That is why after three decades of the Mandate, Britain failed to create a representative government.

Britain was never tasked with creating an Islamist representative government.

That failure falls squarely on the ineptitude and incompetence of Arabs-.Moslems.

You continue to represent the failures of Arabs-Moslems as tbough those failures are anyone's but Arabs-Moslems.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well...... This is not exactly true; or rather a conflicted truth.

It was territory that transitioned from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the complete administration of the Allied Power.

Administration not ownership. Administrators do not have 100% free hand. They must follow rules like not violating the rights of the people.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate granted the Mandatory full powers of legislation (law making) and of administration (governmental control), within the terms of the mandate.

Decisions, outside the terms of the Mandate, was subject to pre-approval by the Council of the League.

In 1922, the only rights under international scrutiny were the "civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

Within the membership of the League (alla 1919), the general understanding of what was meant by "civil and religious rights;" and were not codified. In the post-War years immediately followed by the The Treaty of Versailles Treaty and The Treaty of Lausanne (1923), there was no consensus regarding the accepted principles of human rights, while discussed in bits and pieces even in a time before the American and British conflict (1812), lengthy discussions - even after WWII - failed to achieve the status of International Law in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights (1945). Even the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) did not enter into force until 1976. So, one must ask what (specifically) is meant by "rules like not violating the rights of the people."

•• What constitutes a "right?"
•• What constitutes a violation of that "right?"​

Much of what the Arab Palestinians claim as a right or a violation either did not exist • or • were not defined until the mid-1970's; well after the Arab surprise attack of the Yom Kipper War. And more than a decade before the Declaration of Independence (1988) by the PLO. And in 1988, the Arab Palestinians/PLO did not have sovereign or effective control over any territory. And no one interfered with the PLO Declaration.

Today, the 1948 Israeli War of Independence is over. The War with Egypt ended in 1979, and the War with the Jordanians ended in 1994. Between these two treaties, without prejudice to the status of the Arab Palestinians, the Armistice Lines around the West Bank collapsed into the Jordan River and Dead Sea; and the Armistice Lines around the Gaza Strip collapsed into the Egyptian Border.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1922, the only rights under international scrutiny were the "civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

The Balfour Declaration mentioned civil, religious, and political rights. Interesting that they would mention rights that you claim did not exist. The Jews would have all the rights where the political rights of the Palestinians got the axe.

Where did Britain get the authority to negate the rights of a people who were, at that time, under the sovereignty of another country?

The Mandate was not to acquire sovereignty or territory. It was to render administrative assistance and advice, and in the best interest of the people, bring the inhabitants to independence. However, Britain ruled like a military occupation with no regard for the rights of the people.

Britain was too stupid to figure out why they had problems.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot have it both ways...

Not only did the Arab Palestinians not take responsibility for any of this critical institutions; but refused to join in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians were required to sign onto the settler colonial project before they were allowed to participate.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians cannot complain that they had no control over immigration policy (or any other aspect of governance) if they failed to adapt to Article 22 LON Covenant. ("that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources,")

There is no question that at every major decision point for the Arab Palestinians, they shot themselves in the foot; and continue to do so in the vain hope that they will be able to recover what they lost through ineptitude.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was the British that did not follow Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. That is why after three decades of the Mandate, Britain failed to create a representative government.

Britain was never tasked with creating an Islamist representative government.

That failure falls squarely on the ineptitude and incompetence of Arabs-.Moslems.

You continue to represent the failures of Arabs-Moslems as tbough those failures are anyone's but Arabs-Moslems.

Britain was never tasked with creating an Islamist representative government.

That is true. The Palestinians were Muslims, Christians, and Jews. They all received citizenship without distinction.

 

[Hollie]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot have it both ways...

Not only did the Arab Palestinians not take responsibility for any of this critical institutions; but refused to join in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians were required to sign onto the settler colonial project before they were allowed to participate.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians cannot complain that they had no control over immigration policy (or any other aspect of governance) if they failed to adapt to Article 22 LON Covenant. ("that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources,")

There is no question that at every major decision point for the Arab Palestinians, they shot themselves in the foot; and continue to do so in the vain hope that they will be able to recover what they lost through ineptitude.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was the British that did not follow Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. That is why after three decades of the Mandate, Britain failed to create a representative government.

Britain was never tasked with creating an Islamist representative government.

That failure falls squarely on the ineptitude and incompetence of Arabs-.Moslems.

You continue to represent the failures of Arabs-Moslems as tbough those failures are anyone's but Arabs-Moslems.

Britain was never tasked with creating an Islamist representative government.

That is true. The Palestinians were Muslims, Christians, and Jews. They all received citizenship without distinction.

Citizenship in your invented
"Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land"?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you have scambled the intent of my comment once again.

Within the membership of the League (alla 1919), the general understanding of what was meant by "civil and religious rights;" and were not codified.

In 1922, the only rights under international scrutiny were the "civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

The Balfour Declaration mentioned civil, religious, and political rights. Interesting that they would mention rights that you claim did not exist. The Jews would have all the rights where the political rights of the Palestinians got the axe.

(COMMENT)

In the first half of the 20th Century, the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish immigrant that became citizens, had exactly the same rights.

The international political intent was to create a Jewish National Home in the carve-out determined by the Allied Powers.

What you are attempting to imply is that the Jewish Immigrant turned citizen, somehow took away some "rights" of the Arab Palestinian.

As human and civil rights evolved, the new concept of these rights were just as applicable to the Jewish Immigrant as they were to the Arab Palestinian.

Where did Britain get the authority to negate the rights of a people who were, at that time, under the sovereignty of another country?

(COMMENT)

The Mandate Authority did NOT negate any rights of the Arab Palestinian; nor did the Mandate Authority deal with any sovereignty exercising control over the territory --- as defined by the Allied Powers.

If you know of another country that had sovereign power over the territory as defined and placed under the Mandate, please point that sovereign authority out to me. And please don't use that phony argument that the sovereignty rests with the people. While the right to sovereignty extends to all people, territorial sovereign authority means something different.

Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

SOURCE: Private Site for Legal Research and Studies •
​

The Mandate was not to acquire sovereignty or territory. It was to render administrative assistance and advice, and in the best interest of the people, bring the inhabitants to independence. However, Britain ruled like a military occupation with no regard for the rights of the people.

Britain was too stupid to figure out why they had problems.

(COMMENT)

There is a certain amount of truth to what you say. But the backlash had more to do with the inhabitants of the formerly Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) not cooperating with the Mandate Authority than any other single factor. And to this day, the belligerent attitude and incompetent leadership of the Arab Palestinians → has brought them to the geopolitical and economic conditions now being experienced. And each time the Arab Palestinians attempt to use threats of force, → actual Jihadism, Aggressive Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, → or enlist the aid of Persian Gulf Benefactors → or rally the resources of regional Arab League members, the end-result is they come-out in a worse position than their initial starting point.

If there is a band within the given situation that can be described as lacking intelligence or common sense (stupid), it is the inhabitants of the formerly Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (Arab Palestinians). The British Administration, right up to the very moment that the Mandate ended, attempted to render political-diplomatic assistance. Even the US is making that very same mistake today. But many in the US have come to the conclusion that the irreconcilable conflict between the two principles:

✪ Jews the essential point is the creation of sustainable and defendable sovereign Jewish State.
✪ Arabs, the point is to resist the establishment of Jewish sovereignty within the historical limits of the Palestine Order in Council (1922); the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, → Palestine..
​

The Arab Palestinians hold the "all or nothing" position.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you have scambled the intent of my comment once again.

Within the membership of the League (alla 1919), the general understanding of what was meant by "civil and religious rights;" and were not codified.

In 1922, the only rights under international scrutiny were the "civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

The Balfour Declaration mentioned civil, religious, and political rights. Interesting that they would mention rights that you claim did not exist. The Jews would have all the rights where the political rights of the Palestinians got the axe.

(COMMENT)

In the first half of the 20th Century, the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish immigrant that became citizens, had exactly the same rights.

The international political intent was to create a Jewish National Home in the carve-out determined by the Allied Powers.

What you are attempting to imply is that the Jewish Immigrant turned citizen, somehow took away some "rights" of the Arab Palestinian.

As human and civil rights evolved, the new concept of these rights were just as applicable to the Jewish Immigrant as they were to the Arab Palestinian.

Where did Britain get the authority to negate the rights of a people who were, at that time, under the sovereignty of another country?

(COMMENT)

The Mandate Authority did NOT negate any rights of the Arab Palestinian; nor did the Mandate Authority deal with any sovereignty exercising control over the territory --- as defined by the Allied Powers.

If you know of another country that had sovereign power over the territory as defined and placed under the Mandate, please point that sovereign authority out to me. And please don't use that phony argument that the sovereignty rests with the people. While the right to sovereignty extends to all people, territorial sovereign authority means something different.

Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

SOURCE: Private Site for Legal Research and Studies •
​

The Mandate was not to acquire sovereignty or territory. It was to render administrative assistance and advice, and in the best interest of the people, bring the inhabitants to independence. However, Britain ruled like a military occupation with no regard for the rights of the people.

Britain was too stupid to figure out why they had problems.

(COMMENT)

There is a certain amount of truth to what you say. But the backlash had more to do with the inhabitants of the formerly Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) not cooperating with the Mandate Authority than any other single factor. And to this day, the belligerent attitude and incompetent leadership of the Arab Palestinians → has brought them to the geopolitical and economic conditions now being experienced. And each time the Arab Palestinians attempt to use threats of force, → actual Jihadism, Aggressive Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, → or enlist the aid of Persian Gulf Benefactors → or rally the resources of regional Arab League members, the end-result is they come-out in a worse position than their initial starting point.

If there is a band within the given situation that can be described as lacking intelligence or common sense (stupid), it is the inhabitants of the formerly Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (Arab Palestinians). The British Administration, right up to the very moment that the Mandate ended, attempted to render political-diplomatic assistance. Even the US is making that very same mistake today. But many in the US have come to the conclusion that the irreconcilable conflict between the two principles:

✪ Jews the essential point is the creation of sustainable and defendable sovereign Jewish State.
✪ Arabs, the point is to resist the establishment of Jewish sovereignty within the historical limits of the Palestine Order in Council (1922); the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, → Palestine..
​

The Arab Palestinians hold the "all or nothing" position.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still trying to find excuses as to why Palestinians do not have the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Shusha]

You are still trying to find excuses as to why Palestinians do not have the same rights as everyone else.

Arab Palestinians DO have the same rights as everyone else. What they don't seem to have is the ability.