Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Help me out here. When did General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 come into force as International Law?

Help me out here. When did anything in the Middle East become a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an interesting question... A very interesting question!

(COMMENT)

Just when did the Palestinians every have the effective control or sovereignty over any territory, that they had the ability to change the status of the land?

I say that the Palestinians NEVER had effective control or sovereign control of any territory prior to 1988. And even then, it is a question as to whether they have sovereign control over anything now. They (the Palestinians) keep claiming that they are occupied territory. By definition, if the territory is occupied, then they do not effectively control and territory or have sovereignty over ayn land.

ANSWER: Never! The Palestinians never had any territory. The Arab Palestinians had no authority or dominion over any territory.

The Jewish State of Israel exercised self-determination, having completed the UN Recommended Steps Preparatory to Independence, and in coordination with the successor government (UNPC) made the appropriate declaration by the required provisional government.

Most Respectfully,
R

Just when did the Palestinians every have the effective control or sovereignty over any territory, that they had the ability to change the status of the land?

Are you still pimping Israeli propaganda? You know that effective control is not the criterion for rights.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(REFERENCE)

Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization)

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

The Special Committee annually reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. It also hears statements from NSGTs representatives, dispatches visiting missions, and organizes seminars on the political, social and economic situation in the Territories. Further, the Special Committee annually makes recommendations concerning the dissemination of information to mobilize public opinion in support of the decolonization process, and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
​

View attachment 66028​

(COMMENT)

There is no NSGT anywhere in the Middle East. Not only is the GA/RES/1514 (XV) NOT LAW, but even if it was, there is no applicable territory (relative to the Palestinians) for which this non-binding Resolution applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is not a comprehensive list of NSGTs. Tibet, Kashmir, Palestine, etc are not listed.

Maybe because they are not NSGT's outside of your wild imagination.

But once again you ignore the most pertinent fact that you are trying once again to use UN resolutions as International law, and then to use them retrospectively.

It is true that the the UN General Assembly does not make law. They do, however, reference existing international law, i.e. laws that already existed prior to the resolution.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

And what international law is it re affirming and when did it become international law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I know you haven't heard much about this region conflict.

Whose dispute?
Whose partition?

(ANSWER)

• Whose dispute: In February 1948 the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration:

That before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child. determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.
​

• Whose partition: In February 1948 the Arab Higher Committee Delegation declared the following:

The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians had every right to reject the Partition of their country. And they did stop the plan. It was never implemented.

Neither the Mandate nor resolution 181 changed Palestine's legal status. It was still a non self governing territory. A legal entity as the British described it.

When was it declared their country then as it never existed under the Ottomans as a country and the LoN never declared it a country under their sovereign rule.

It had no legal status to change other than to become two entities' a Jewish Palestine and an arab Palestine. After 1948 it ceased to be a NSGT as it became ruled by the people who lived there. In 1967 the people who lived in arab Palestine instigated a war and were beaten back so the land became occupied, but still governed by the people who lived there. Then in 1970 the people decided to make a violent coup and steal the land for themselves, they failed and the governing body cast them adrift. In 1988 the people declared independence so becoming a self governing occupied territory.


You really need to stop reading islamonazi and neo Marxist propaganda rubbish. Just look at the undisputed facts and not the fantasy you have built

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

In conclusion, Palestinian nationality was first founded on 6 August 1924, “and treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date”. The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of, and practice relating to, Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from an international law angle.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​

What do you have that says they are not?

The Mandate of Palestine and the treaty of Sevres, as opposed to your islamonazi propaganda and blood libels you trot out as if they were true
Posting part of a resolution as if it was international law without affirming the date of its implementation shows that it does no such thing

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, and they can misstate existing law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Help me out here. When did General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 come into force as International Law?

Help me out here. When did anything in the Middle East become a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an interesting question... A very interesting question!

(COMMENT)

Just when did the Palestinians every have the effective control or sovereignty over any territory, that they had the ability to change the status of the land?

I say that the Palestinians NEVER had effective control or sovereign control of any territory prior to 1988. And even then, it is a question as to whether they have sovereign control over anything now. They (the Palestinians) keep claiming that they are occupied territory. By definition, if the territory is occupied, then they do not effectively control and territory or have sovereignty over ayn land.

ANSWER: Never! The Palestinians never had any territory. The Arab Palestinians had no authority or dominion over any territory.

The Jewish State of Israel exercised self-determination, having completed the UN Recommended Steps Preparatory to Independence, and in coordination with the successor government (UNPC) made the appropriate declaration by the required provisional government.

Most Respectfully,
R

Just when did the Palestinians every have the effective control or sovereignty over any territory, that they had the ability to change the status of the land?

Are you still pimping Israeli propaganda? You know that effective control is not the criterion for rights.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(REFERENCE)

Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization)

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

The Special Committee annually reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. It also hears statements from NSGTs representatives, dispatches visiting missions, and organizes seminars on the political, social and economic situation in the Territories. Further, the Special Committee annually makes recommendations concerning the dissemination of information to mobilize public opinion in support of the decolonization process, and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
​

View attachment 66028​

(COMMENT)

There is no NSGT anywhere in the Middle East. Not only is the GA/RES/1514 (XV) NOT LAW, but even if it was, there is no applicable territory (relative to the Palestinians) for which this non-binding Resolution applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is not a comprehensive list of NSGTs. Tibet, Kashmir, Palestine, etc are not listed.

Maybe because they are not NSGT's outside of your wild imagination.

But once again you ignore the most pertinent fact that you are trying once again to use UN resolutions as International law, and then to use them retrospectively.

It is true that the the UN General Assembly does not make law. They do, however, reference existing international law, i.e. laws that already existed prior to the resolution.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

(COMMENT)

Yes, the General Assembly is not telling you what they are reaffirming. But the UN Special Committee 24 says what it says: They don't consider Palestine a NSGT.

The Resolution you cite does not actually say that Palestine is state or NSGT subject to decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). What is actually says is, if it were ever to become a colonial territory or otherwise a NSGT, THEN --- it would be a Territory to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Even the United States could be, if someone were to bring it under their domain, it would conceptually fall under the Decolonization policy. BUT, remember, 1524 (XV) is not LAW. What the resolution is citing is the intent of the UN Charter which I've discussed earlier.

It would be helpful if you were to cite the exact law to which you thing is being reaffirmed, when you make these allegations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I've seen this all before.

I'll make a couple of points and then let is go.

In this regard, the Plan provided that: “States whose nationals have in the past enjoyed in Palestine the privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection, as formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are invited to renounce any right pertaining to them to there-establishment of such privileges and immunities in the proposed Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem”. As the United Nations Partition Plan was never implemented,...

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​

​

(COMMENT)

The "International Law Foundation is NOT a court. "It is a 21st Century creation --- a "nongovernmental organization (NGO) that assists post-conflict and transitional countries in establishing public defender systems that provide effective, quality criminal defense services for the poor."

Although it sounds very official, it has no legal standing what so ever.

GARes181 never went to the Security Council for approval, therefore, it remained as a 'recommendation'.
​

​

(COMMENT)

I don't think I claimed that it was, or ever needed, UN Security Council Approval. However, that does not change the question to the argument : Did it exist? AND it does not change the fact that the Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government, still followed the the official "RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THE REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON 'THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION."

The reason why the General Assembly Resolution 181 never went to the Security Council for consideration was because it implied that if it were to be approved by the Security Council, then it would require military force to implement it, considering the Zionist position at that time.

UN Resolution 181 - 1948

(COMMENT)

This is just so wrong on so may levels. But needless to say, the Successor Government (the UN Palestine Commission) operated on the adopted set of rules.

14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council May consider necessary to issue. The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly,shall become immèdiately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council. The Commission shall render periodic monthly progress reports, or more frequently if desirable, ta the Security Council.

15. The Commission shaIl make its final report ta the next regular session of the General Assembly and to the Security Council simultaneously.
​

As long as the Provisional Israeli Government followed and declared independence according to the Recommended and Adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence, it is what it is. In the absence of guidance to the contrary --- from the Security Council to the Successor Government (UNPC) --- the Declaration of Independence followed the UN Guidance Recommended by the General Assembly. No where in the Resolution does the Resolution have to go to the security Council for approval. It says:

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.
​

Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications

that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181‟s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly‟s recommendation.

Some thought the Partition plan could be revived, but by the end of the war, Resolution 181 had become a moot issue...

(COMMENT)

A recommendation does not need to be "consummated." I've heard you say that before, but that that is nowhere in the Charter. No General Assembly recommendation by Resolution needs anything more. Just as it is if you give someone advise or a recommendation. It doesn't need any other approval.

The pro-Palestinians have no coherent voice with one platform or political position. And like may issues, this understanding of the importance of GA/RES/181(II) is no exception. Arab Palestinians have this tendency to shift or change positions whenever and where ever it best suits them. Just as I have shown here where the official Palestinian position is one thing, you of course, have to find some NGO that states something else. It is what it is. Just remember:

You can't alter the history that the Arab Higher Committee rejected the Resolution and then threaten to use force to achieve what they could not achieve in diplomacy.
You cannot roll back the clock and reword either:

• The 1948 Declaration of Israeli Independence using the recommendation of Resolution 181(II).
• The 1988 Declaration of Independence used by the PLO an stating:

∆∆ Despite the historical injustice inflicted on the Palestinian Arab people resulting in their dispersion and depriving them of their right to self-determination, following upon UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, yet it is this Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty.
​

• You cannot erase Palestinian Position in 1999 that "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)."​

Now, there is no doubt that the complete intent of the Resolution was not achieved. But that is not for the lack of the Israeli's trying. The failure to achieve all the desired outcomes of the Resolution was a direct result Arab League trying (and failing) to alter the right of the Israelis to implement the right of self-determination (which did not then --- and --- does not now require Security Council approval). All people, not just the Arab Palestinians --- BUT --- all people have the right to self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1948 Declaration of Israeli Independence using the recommendation of Resolution 181(II).​

Big fat lie. Israel violated almost every part of resolution 181 even before its declaration.

How could they violate something that was not legally binding, and you have posted to that effect above

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This may have been partially true in 1948; but it certainly does not answer the two questions you posed.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I know you haven't heard much about this region conflict.

(ANSWER)

• Whose dispute: In February 1948 the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration:

That before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child. determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.​

• Whose partition: In February 1948 the Arab Higher Committee Delegation declared the following:

The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians had every right to reject the Partition of their country. And they did stop the plan. It was never implemented.

Neither the Mandate nor resolution 181 changed Palestine's legal status. It was still a non self governing territory. A legal entity as the British described it.

(COMMENT)

You asked "whose dispute" and "whose partition." And i answered both question in the reality of 1948. And it has not changed much since then.

As far as "implementation goes," you are not being honest. In the May 1948 UN Official Press Release, from the Headquarters and the Successor Government of Palestine, says something ENTIRELY different. The question is: are you challenging what was said? "The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

View attachment 66137
EXCERPT from UN DOCUMENT DATABASE UNISPAL​

As far as the recommendations of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), you simply cannot deny the existence of something that actually happened. You cannot deny the Resolution any more than you can deny the Sunrise. It is a matter of record. You may deny reality, as a way to avoid the psychologically uncomfortable truth that both Israel and the 1988 Palestine cited UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) in their documentation announcing independence. But that does not change the weather or roll back the clock.

View attachment 66138
LETTER from the Permanent Palestinian Observer March 1999​

I would like you to take note that the Palestinian Permanent Observer made note that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

It is also important to note that, even today, the Palestine Liberation Organization - Negotiation Affairs Department (PLO-NAD) still makes mention of the reality:

• In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the partitioning of Palestine, against the wishes of the majority of our inhabitants. The Partition Plan allocated 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state. At the time, the Jewish population living in Palestine represented only one third of the total population and owned less than seven percent of the land.

• Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.
​

You cannot use something that did not exist as evidence to in the territorial dispute. Now it is possible to claim that because of the Arab League aggressive military intervention to prevent implementation, the entire accomplishment of the resolution (non-binding)... You can argue that the "neighboring Arab armies" which attempted to undermine the UN Recommendations, had an adverse impact and changed the optimum outcome. But you cannot claim that Israel did not attempt to implement the 1947 Partition Recommendation; that would be denialism.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this regard, the Plan provided that: “States whose nationals have in the past enjoyed in Palestine the privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection, as formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are invited to renounce any right pertaining to them to there-establishment of such privileges and immunities in the proposed Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem”. As the United Nations Partition Plan was never implemented,...

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​

---------------------

GARes181 never went to the Security Council for approval, therefore, it remained as a 'recommendation'.

The reason why the General Assembly Resolution 181 never went to the Security Council for consideration was because it implied that if it were to be approved by the Security Council, then it would require military force to implement it, considering the Zionist position at that time.

UN Resolution 181 - 1948​

------------------------

Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181‟s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly‟s recommendation.

Some thought the Partition plan could be revived, but by the end of the war, Resolution 181 had become a moot issue...

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf​

-----------------------

So this means that Palestine doesn't have a right to exist then either, does it.


As you have been shown by official UN documents 181 was implemented as in was and either or recommendation, which means that it only took one party to agree and the recommendation was fulfilled





Your first link is not valid as it is islamonazi propaganda

Your second link is also islamonazi propaganda

Link three has this to say

In the late 1990s, more than 50 years after Resolution 181 was rejected by the Arab world, Arab leaders suddenly recommended to the General Assembly that UN Resolution 181 be resurrected as the basis for a peace agreement. There is no foundation for such a notion.


Care to answer the question ?

Palestine already existed.

Then why is there no mention of a nation of Palestine before 1988 ?

I have tried and cant find any mention of a nation of Palestine, what I do find is an undefined area in the M.E. and a defined mandate area

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1947, the UNPC as a name, has not been selected yet.

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The UNPC was not mentioned.

Where was the UNPC when they were to protect the people and territory of Palestine?

(COMMENT)

I copied and pasted the exact verbage from the 1947 Resolution 181(II). It refers to it as "Commission."

Quite trying to confuse the issue with your effects to misdirect the process.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, and they can misstate existing law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Help me out here. When did General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 come into force as International Law?

Help me out here. When did anything in the Middle East become a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).

Just when did the Palestinians every have the effective control or sovereignty over any territory, that they had the ability to change the status of the land?

Are you still pimping Israeli propaganda? You know that effective control is not the criterion for rights.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(REFERENCE)

Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization)

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

The Special Committee annually reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. It also hears statements from NSGTs representatives, dispatches visiting missions, and organizes seminars on the political, social and economic situation in the Territories. Further, the Special Committee annually makes recommendations concerning the dissemination of information to mobilize public opinion in support of the decolonization process, and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
​

View attachment 66028​

(COMMENT)

There is no NSGT anywhere in the Middle East. Not only is the GA/RES/1514 (XV) NOT LAW, but even if it was, there is no applicable territory (relative to the Palestinians) for which this non-binding Resolution applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is not a comprehensive list of NSGTs. Tibet, Kashmir, Palestine, etc are not listed.

Maybe because they are not NSGT's outside of your wild imagination.

But once again you ignore the most pertinent fact that you are trying once again to use UN resolutions as International law, and then to use them retrospectively.

It is true that the the UN General Assembly does not make law. They do, however, reference existing international law, i.e. laws that already existed prior to the resolution.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

(COMMENT)

Yes, the General Assembly is not telling you what they are reaffirming. But the UN Special Committee 24 says what it says: They don't consider Palestine a NSGT.

The Resolution you cite does not actually say that Palestine is state or NSGT subject to decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). What is actually says is, if it were ever to become a colonial territory or otherwise a NSGT, THEN --- it would be a Territory to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Even the United States could be, if someone were to bring it under their domain, it would conceptually fall under the Decolonization policy. BUT, remember, 1524 (XV) is not LAW. What the resolution is citing is the intent of the UN Charter which I've discussed earlier.

It would be helpful if you were to cite the exact law to which you thing is being reaffirmed, when you make these allegations.

Most Respectfully,
R

Is this what you are arguing against?

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm

What do you have that refutes this?

NSGT is a political designation. Who determines that designation and how is the process initiated?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.

But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin.​

It was not privately owned land. It was public land. And it was in Area C -- land under Israeli civil and security control.

So what makes it "Palestinian land" (under Palestinian sovereignty -- more properly 'control' since there is no sovereign Palestine yet) and not "Israeli land" (under Israeli sovereignty)? Why should Palestinians be permitted to build on that land while Israel is not permitted to build on that land?

What makes it Jewish land? Why aren't Paletsinians permitted to build there or even live there?

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1947, the UNPC as a name, has not been selected yet.

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The UNPC was not mentioned.

Where was the UNPC when they were to protect the people and territory of Palestine?

(COMMENT)

I copied and pasted the exact verbage from the 1947 Resolution 181(II). It refers to it as "Commission."

View attachment 66167​

Quite trying to confuse the issue with your effects to misdirect the process.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

When did all this happen?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You always address the issues as if "you were some kind of authority" to which the implementation teams/elements had to answer to meet your expectations. Get over that. I have sent you document. The British Mandatory accomplished it coordination the way it wanted.

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1947, the UNPC as a name, has not been selected yet.

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The UNPC was not mentioned.

Where was the UNPC when they were to protect the people and territory of Palestine?

(COMMENT)

I copied and pasted the exact verbage from the 1947 Resolution 181(II). It refers to it as "Commission."

View attachment 66167​

Quite trying to confuse the issue with your effects to misdirect the process.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

When did all this happen?

(COMMENT)

These are instructions to the Mandatory (British) to assist the Palestine Commission. What the Mandatory did or did not do --- does not change the historical actions relative to the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You always address the issues as if "you were some kind of authority" to which the implementation teams/elements had to answer to meet your expectations. Get over that. I have sent you document. The British Mandatory accomplished it coordination the way it wanted.

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1947, the UNPC as a name, has not been selected yet.

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The UNPC was not mentioned.

Where was the UNPC when they were to protect the people and territory of Palestine?

(COMMENT)

I copied and pasted the exact verbage from the 1947 Resolution 181(II). It refers to it as "Commission."

View attachment 66167​

Quite trying to confuse the issue with your effects to misdirect the process.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

When did all this happen?

(COMMENT)

These are instructions to the Mandatory (British) to assist the Palestine Commission. What the Mandatory did or did not do --- does not change the historical actions relative to the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course the whole point is moot because the UN had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

This is a very good question. This actually has nothing to do with the conflict or war.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

(COMMENT)

Almost universally, this is called "asset forfeiture/seizure." Each nation has different rules. There is actually no right or wrong to it. I don't know the exact law in Israel, but, it is probably similar to the US general concept.
http://property.laws.com/property-law/abandoned-property
• Who Can Acquire Abandoned Property?

Generally, when property is abandoned by its rightful owner, it must remain unused for a specified period of time, before the government is permitted to acquire control of the property. In most instances, this period ranges from 3 years to 5 years. During the period of inactivity, banks, landlords, and insurance companies must work to locate the absent owner.
​

• US Legal corollaries and examples!

This is very different from the Criminal Forfeiture Actions (subject to forfeiture and named in the indictment that charges the criminal offense), Civil Forfeiture Actions (in cases where the action is not contested in a timely manner, any legal claim to the property is thereafter barred and the agency may declare the property forfeited), Administrative Forfeiture (the forfeiture action is against real property, the proceedings must be judicial, regardless of the value of the property --- usually tax issues), and Judicial Forfeitures (court order or legislative action). In criminal forfeitures, the property usually must have a connection with the criminal activity. There are many countries that confiscate houses, cars, boats, aircraft, etc in the transport of contraband (drugs and weapons) or the used in a serious crime or in connection with terrorism or safe havens.​

Again, this has nothing to do with the the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This is done everyday in the Western World.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This reveals a childlike understanding.

Of course the whole point is moot because the UN had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

The actual creation is based on the Chapter I, Article 1(2) (the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples), invoked by the Jewish People. The "how" (the procedure) was outlined by the UN by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence).

Again, you will attempt to any subterfuge to twist the actual events to your side of the argument. However, it is odd that the Palestinians used the same outline and asked for membership in the UN under the same criteria in Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

This is a very good question. This actually has nothing to do with the conflict or war.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

(COMMENT)

Almost universally, this is called "asset forfeiture/seizure." Each nation has different rules. There is actually no right or wrong to it. I don't know the exact law in Israel, but, it is probably similar to the US general concept.
• Who Can Acquire Abandoned Property?

Generally, when property is abandoned by its rightful owner, it must remain unused for a specified period of time, before the government is permitted to acquire control of the property. In most instances, this period ranges from 3 years to 5 years. During the period of inactivity, banks, landlords, and insurance companies must work to locate the absent owner.
​

• US Legal corollaries and examples!

This is very different from the Criminal Forfeiture Actions (subject to forfeiture and named in the indictment that charges the criminal offense), Civil Forfeiture Actions (in cases where the action is not contested in a timely manner, any legal claim to the property is thereafter barred and the agency may declare the property forfeited), Administrative Forfeiture (the forfeiture action is against real property, the proceedings must be judicial, regardless of the value of the property --- usually tax issues), and Judicial Forfeitures (court order or legislative action). In criminal forfeitures, the property usually must have a connection with the criminal activity. There are many countries that confiscate houses, cars, boats, aircraft, etc in the transport of contraband (drugs and weapons) or the used in a serious crime or in connection with terrorism or safe havens.​

Again, this has nothing to do with the the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This is done everyday in the Western World.

Most Respectfully,
R

The way the absentee property law works in Israel.

The military drives the Palestinians off their land and declares it to be a closed military zone. Then three years later the civil administration declares it to be "unused" property and claims it for the state.

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?

I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you but yes, retroactively

And yes targeting just one country while in the middle of a war.

The 1967 situation stabilized in June 11 1967. When the UN brokered a cease fire.

On November 22 1967 the UNSC then passed resolution 242, a non-binding resolution which demanded that Israel withdraw from its defensive positions and allow the Arabs to return to their previously illegally held positions

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct..._B8bNhi22CnMy_SPOddksw&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Now as I recall ;--) June comes BEFORE November on the calendar

Ergo the stipulation that Israel return to its former position and give up its improved defensive stature was retroactivly applied.

And yes, ONLY Israel is mentioned in the resolution .

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?

I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you but yes, retroactively

And yes targeting just one country while in the middle of a war.

The 1967 situation stabilized in June 11 1967. When the UN brokered a cease fire.

On November 22 1967 the UNSC then passed resolution 242, a non-binding resolution which demanded that Israel withdraw from its defensive positions and allow the Arabs to return to their previously illegally held positions

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjLwN_gqq3LAhVBt4MKHYPLAokQFggjMAE&url=https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136&usg=AFQjCNEBfvcb7Pa44oqYK4equwojBADcaQ&sig2=_B8bNhi22CnMy_SPOddksw&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Now as I recall ;--) June comes BEFORE November on the calendar

Ergo the stipulation that Israel return to its former position and give up its improved defensive stature was retroactivly applied.

And yes, ONLY Israel is mentioned in the resolution .

So, up until then, no other country has been required to return territory it gained in conflict?

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?

I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you but yes, retroactively

And yes targeting just one country while in the middle of a war.

The 1967 situation stabilized in June 11 1967. When the UN brokered a cease fire.

On November 22 1967 the UNSC then passed resolution 242, a non-binding resolution which demanded that Israel withdraw from its defensive positions and allow the Arabs to return to their previously illegally held positions

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjLwN_gqq3LAhVBt4MKHYPLAokQFggjMAE&url=https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136&usg=AFQjCNEBfvcb7Pa44oqYK4equwojBADcaQ&sig2=_B8bNhi22CnMy_SPOddksw&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Now as I recall ;--) June comes BEFORE November on the calendar

Ergo the stipulation that Israel return to its former position and give up its improved defensive stature was retroactivly applied.

And yes, ONLY Israel is mentioned in the resolution .

According to the resolution: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Israel was not "singled out". The resolution called on all participating states:

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."


It also states this:
John McHugo says that by the 1920s, international law no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[18]

Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be "no title by conquest". He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.[19] Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense.[20]