Can Palestinian's and Israeli's ever be friends?

[Phoenall]

Instead of just deny it how about you bring proof so that we can all have a good laugh ?

Since the Roman invasion of Israel the Jews have had the concept of Zionism as part of Judaism.

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).

Judaism is an ancient monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Midrash and the Talmud.

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

And how does your cut and paste show that Zionism is not now a fundamental part of judaism

Other than your BS words can YOU prove its a fundamental part of Judaism?

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

True but it still does not alter the facts that all followers of Judaism practice Zionism when the repeat the mantra " next year in Jerusalem".
You fail again because you don't do the research and just use islamonazi propaganda sources.

What a schmuck you are Phoney....

You contradict yourself in a single sentence!

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews.... TRUE...

You cannot then carry on with "all followers of Judaism practice Zionism".... NOT TRUE....

Another Phoney Phail.... Idiot!

LIKE NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS, BUT NEARLY ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS

Not all Catholics agree with no birth control even though it is a fundamental part of their religion. Same with muslims that eat pig and drink alcohol even though it is banned in islam. So all Jews that are practising Jews also practise Zionism even though they are against it. " NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM" is the Zionist mantra spoken by all Jews during. And might I point you top Psalm 137 that is from the Babylonian era, showing that Zionism at its most fundamental was practised even back then.

 

[Humanity]

all Jews that are practising Jews also practise Zionism

HAHAHAHAHA WHAT A FOOL!

 

[Rehmani]

Humanity you are behaving hypocritically

How so?

As You are defending trouble maker israel, ignoring all that killing by jews.

I do not defend the government of Israel nor their policies...

I do not defend the zionists who, in my opinion, are no better than Hamas extremists...

I do defend the right of Jews to have a homeland...

You understand the differences between Israel, zionism and Jews?

I do understand that you are hypocrite and you are supporting force invasion and keep killing innocent people by Israel.

 

[Rehmani]

But jews are supporting Zionists in Israel...

Just right wing Jews. Left wing Jews are cool. But the Likud Party is no different than al Qaeda and ISIS. In fact, they're providing material support to them in Syria.

Israeli PM Netanfuckyou can go to hell! He's a ******* megalomaniac, who's giving Jews a bad reputation all over the world.

But jews have bad reputation around the world and in the history as well.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your first mistake is that you are relying on what you --- "have ever seen." What you "have ever seen" is a mighty short history considering that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (RoIP) did not come about until 2007; less than a decade ago. While the right of self-determination is a concept somewhat older, by half a Century, to that of the RoIP, it was not universal (limited internal to UN members and undefined). That is, it was not considered for inclusion in the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III) - Universal Declaration of Human Rights. REMEMBERING: Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body.

Your second mistake is that the "right of self-determination" is not delimited and applies to all people ---- including the Israelis. While there was a concern expressed, in the 21st Century (more than half a Century later), pertaining to the suffering of indigenous peoples and the historic injustices associated with them, as a result of their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, it is a historic concern and not a retroactive concept that can be applied to decisions made in the 20th Century. Nothing in the RoIP changes the effect of decisions made prior to the adoption of the RoIP.

Your third mistake is, that you erroneously injected the idea that the Jewish Citizens of the Territory to which the Mandate applied, were "foreigners." They were citizens of the territory to the same degree as any Arab Palestinian. It must be remembered that in 1922, the definition of foreigner did was made by the process of elimination,

For the purpose of this part of the (Palestine) Order (in Council) the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.

(ii) Ottoman subjects.

(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.​

However, by 1925, The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence. Thus anyone granted citizenship to the under the Order was no longer considered a "foreigner."

Article 5 of the Order facilitates the acquisition of citizenship by Jews who opted therefor under Article 2 of the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. The qualifications for naturalization are simple: two years' residence in Palestine out of the three years preceding application, good character, and the declared intention to settle in Palestine; knowledge of Hebrew is accepted under the literacy qualification. In special cases the High Commissioner is empowered to grant naturalization even if the period of residence has not been within the three years preceding application. Special naturalization offices have already been opened in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tiberias; and an officer is visiting the Jewish agricultural settlements in the north to receive applications on the spot.​

Billo_Really, P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very pleased if you could point to an authority that can define "self-determination" such that it can answer the questions:

• Who has the right to self-determination?
• What does self-determination impart on the people?

I have used the ICJ CR 2009/32 on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, as a guide of sorts in the post-colonization context. I do not believe that the "right of self-determination" is such a "straightforward principle" as you claim. It must be remembered that in terms of external self-determination the outcome is independence or secession for the given people that exercise that right.

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

That's by design.

Or maybe he's being paid to think that way?

(COMMENT)

• If you say all people(s), you are then implying that the Jewish People that immigrated to and became citizens of Palestine; under the Mandate criteria?

• If you are implying that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination, then where are the limitations defined?

"In the 2010 Kosovo decision, the International Court of Justice decided that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence." (Wikipedia)(ICJ ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010) And so the question becomes:

• Is it unlawful for the Arab Palestinian factions to challenge the Jewish State of Israel territorial integrity?
• Was it illegal for the Jewish National Council to Declare Independence for the State of Israel in 1948 under the right of self-determination and pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence; as outlined in the General Assembly Resolution?

The Court recalls that the principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4, (as well as General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States) which provides that: “All Members shall 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.”​

• Under what context does the Arab Palestinian claim a superior right to self-determination?

Most Respectfully,
R

In every incident that I have ever seen the right to self determination applies to the people, the natives, the indigenous, or inhabitants of a specified territory. The right to self determination consistently applies to the people of the place.

At no time have I seen the right to self determination applied to foreigners.

(COMMENT)

If you examine the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly - 61/295 - United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (RoIP), a 21st Century doctrine (2007), you will note a couple of concepts in play. But in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the RoIP comes 9 decades later, and cannot be applied to the intent expressed in the Balfour Declaration (1917 intent for a Jewish "National Home" in what was known as Palestine) or the decisions made by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920 delineating the responsible to put into effect the declaration the intent of the Balfour Declaration), to establish in Palestine a National Home for the Jewish people.

Indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples,

••• Whether the Arab Palestinian make the distinction of being different from the Jewish Immigrants (the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different in the RoIP), their rights are not changed by this distinction --- either increased or diminished.
​

All doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.

••• You cannot advocate the position that the citizens (who happen to consider themselves Arab Palestinian) hold a superior position just because their heredity is longer in the territory. All rights are equally applied because all citizen share equally in the exercise of their right.
​

And, very importantly, the retroactive application of the RoIP and other resolution adopted after the fact, impairs vested rights acquired under under the law existing at that time, and creates new obligations. A retroactive UN Decree attaches a new and different legal effect to past decisions, actions, transactions or considerations the were assumed at that time; representing a change in the commitment prior to the enactment.

The inverse is also true. In the case of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, the Palestinians cannot - on a again / off again - adjust their recognition of the 1947 Resolution A/RES/181 (II) relative to the Partition Plan. And the UN Body-system cannot establish a criteria known as the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" and acknowledge and accept recognition of a State --- then say: The establishment of the state is invalid, after the fact. Nor, can the UN General Assembly or the International Court of Justice say on the one hand, that the Armistice Line is a de facto border (when it was never a border or intended to be a final border); and on the other hand say it is a border and give the Arab Palestinians some special recognition of governance and sovereignty. Nor can the UN recognize the flip-flop between one faction of Arab Palestinian that recognize the State of Israel, and then later --- not recognize the same state.

Finally, the continued reference to the Israeli People as "foreigners" and "colonialist" and attempting to apply the criteria adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, more that a decade later, is false logic. The establishment of the Jewish State of Israel was not undertaken by a foreign power or distant parent state (ie - a colonial power). In 1948, the creation of conditions of stability and well-being Israel and the Jewish People; peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples. The subsequence invasion by multiple forces of the Arab League, was not an example of allowing the Jewish People the right to self-determination without external interference; pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Very Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo_Really, P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very pleased if you could point to an authority that can define "self-determination" such that it can answer the questions:

• Who has the right to self-determination?
• What does self-determination impart on the people?

I have used the ICJ CR 2009/32 on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, as a guide of sorts in the post-colonization context. I do not believe that the "right of self-determination" is such a "straightforward principle" as you claim. It must be remembered that in terms of external self-determination the outcome is independence or secession for the given people that exercise that right.

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

That's by design.

Or maybe he's being paid to think that way?

(COMMENT)

• If you say all people(s), you are then implying that the Jewish People that immigrated to and became citizens of Palestine; under the Mandate criteria?

• If you are implying that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination, then where are the limitations defined?

"In the 2010 Kosovo decision, the International Court of Justice decided that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence." (Wikipedia)(ICJ ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010) And so the question becomes:

• Is it unlawful for the Arab Palestinian factions to challenge the Jewish State of Israel territorial integrity?
• Was it illegal for the Jewish National Council to Declare Independence for the State of Israel in 1948 under the right of self-determination and pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence; as outlined in the General Assembly Resolution?

The Court recalls that the principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4, (as well as General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States) which provides that: “All Members shall 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.”​

• Under what context does the Arab Palestinian claim a superior right to self-determination?

Most Respectfully,
R

Kosovo and Palestine were two completely different scenarios. Kosovo declared independence under considerable legal and political baggage. Palestine, however, had no legal baggage when it declared independence in 1948.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed possession of Palestine. They merely held Palestine in trust until the people could stand alone. The mandate could not and did not change Palestine's legal status.

Britain failed to accomplish any of its goals and otherwise fucked up so bad that they transferred its trusteeship to UNSCOP and left. UNSCOP failed to assume its responsibilities.

The people, the land, and the international borders remained unchanged. Palestine remained a non self governing territory. As the native population the Palestinians have the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as subsequent UN resolutions have confirmed.

This is the backdrop for Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence that was in complete compliance with international law.

 

[Humanity]

Humanity you are behaving hypocritically

How so?

As You are defending trouble maker israel, ignoring all that killing by jews.

I do not defend the government of Israel nor their policies...

I do not defend the zionists who, in my opinion, are no better than Hamas extremists...

I do defend the right of Jews to have a homeland...

You understand the differences between Israel, zionism and Jews?

I do understand that you are hypocrite and you are supporting force invasion and keep killing innocent people by Israel.

Odd response to my comment... Did you actually READ my comment?

 

[Phoenall]

Billo_Really, P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very pleased if you could point to an authority that can define "self-determination" such that it can answer the questions:

• Who has the right to self-determination?
• What does self-determination impart on the people?

I have used the ICJ CR 2009/32 on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, as a guide of sorts in the post-colonization context. I do not believe that the "right of self-determination" is such a "straightforward principle" as you claim. It must be remembered that in terms of external self-determination the outcome is independence or secession for the given people that exercise that right.

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

That's by design.

Or maybe he's being paid to think that way?

(COMMENT)

• If you say all people(s), you are then implying that the Jewish People that immigrated to and became citizens of Palestine; under the Mandate criteria?

• If you are implying that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination, then where are the limitations defined?

"In the 2010 Kosovo decision, the International Court of Justice decided that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence." (Wikipedia)(ICJ ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010) And so the question becomes:

• Is it unlawful for the Arab Palestinian factions to challenge the Jewish State of Israel territorial integrity?
• Was it illegal for the Jewish National Council to Declare Independence for the State of Israel in 1948 under the right of self-determination and pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence; as outlined in the General Assembly Resolution?

The Court recalls that the principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4, (as well as General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States) which provides that: “All Members shall 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.”​

• Under what context does the Arab Palestinian claim a superior right to self-determination?

Most Respectfully,
R

Kosovo and Palestine were two completely different scenarios. Kosovo declared independence under considerable legal and political baggage. Palestine, however, had no legal baggage when it declared independence in 1948.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed possession of Palestine. They merely held Palestine in trust until the people could stand alone. The mandate could not and did not change Palestine's legal status.

Britain failed to accomplish any of its goals and otherwise fucked up so bad that they transferred its trusteeship to UNSCOP and left. UNSCOP failed to assume its responsibilities.

The people, the land, and the international borders remained unchanged. Palestine remained a non self governing territory. As the native population the Palestinians have the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as subsequent UN resolutions have confirmed.

This is the backdrop for Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence that was in complete compliance with international law.

Didn't the muslims declare on land that belonged to another nation/people and weren't they mainly recent immigrants from all over the Islamic world. So if they could do it in Yugoslavia why couldn't the Jews do it in Palestine ?

No the LoN were the sovereign rulers of the M.E, not just Palestine, and they could do with the land as they saw fit. You see in 1917 Palestine had no legal status other than that granted under the terms of the Mandate.

Britain had no goals other than to be guides for the people of the M.E. in declaring themselves fit for purpose, it they were not fit for purpose then their declaration was denied. There were no international borders of the land of Palestine only the two mandates of Palestine. The people were in a state of flux and came and went with the seasons. Yes all 20 factions of the Palestinians had the right to independence and sovereignty but only after they had shown they were capable of doing so.

It was the all Palestine government that was an arab league concoction that tried to declare independence on land that was already in the hands of another indigenous people, so it was in breach of the UN charter and the Mandate of Palestine. There is no international law that I or anyone else knows of that granted them the land. Care to produce your evidence of this international law ?

 

[Phoenall]

Humanity you are behaving hypocritically

How so?

As You are defending trouble maker israel, ignoring all that killing by jews.

I do not defend the government of Israel nor their policies...

I do not defend the zionists who, in my opinion, are no better than Hamas extremists...

I do defend the right of Jews to have a homeland...

You understand the differences between Israel, zionism and Jews?

I do understand that you are hypocrite and you are supporting force invasion and keep killing innocent people by Israel.

Odd response to my comment... Did you actually READ my comment?

Well his/her reply was right on the button so they must have

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Baggage or no baggage, the rule of law and the precedent for the ruling does not change.

Kosovo and Palestine were two completely different scenarios. Kosovo declared independence under considerable legal and political baggage. Palestine, however, had no legal baggage when it declared independence in 1948.

(COMMENT)

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.

• One people (APG) cannot claim independence (September 1948) over an area claimed previously declared independent (May 1948) by another people (National Council for the State of Israel).
• The APG cannot declare independence over territory it did not control. The Israeli Defense Force controlled a substantial portion of the territory identified as the recommended allocation for the Jewish State.
• The APG was political curiosity established by the Arab League (not a Palestinian Provisional Government and controlled by the Egyptian Military governorship) on 22 September 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The APG was dissoleved in 1959 by the Egyptian Government (not a Palestinian Provisional Government).
​

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed possession of Palestine. They merely held Palestine in trust until the people could stand alone. The mandate could not and did not change Palestine's legal status.

(COMMENT)

Well, you almost have it right. First it was not held in trust for the Palestinian People. The League of Nations Covenant said: "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." The term "Certain Communities" is not necessarily inclusive of the Palestinian People.

Nowhere in the League of Nation Covenant is the phrase "held in trust" used or implied. The Covenant says: "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Part II - Mandate Regime --- Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".

Accordingly, under the terms of the Mandate, the Mandatory is to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandate also provides for the recognition as a public body of a Jewish agency which is to advise and co-operate with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, the Administration, for its part, must facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​

The League of Nation Covenant does not address the Mandates specifically, nor any specific territory assigned to Palestine.

Britain failed to accomplish any of its goals and otherwise fucked up so bad that they transferred its trusteeship to UNSCOP and left. UNSCOP failed to assume its responsibilities.

(COMMENT)

The "Successor Government" immediately after the British Mandate was the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC). Many times you have made the accusation that the UNPCdid not accomplish its tasks; never taking into account that the Arab League Armies opened their offensive on the same day (15 May 1948) that the UNPC was to assume governmental responsibilities. One of the purpose to the Hostile Offensive by the Arab League was to defying the resolution of the General Assembly and engaged in a deliberate effort to politically alter by force the Partition Program through external interference. The UN Relieved the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 and HAVING ADOPTED a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

The people, the land, and the international borders remained unchanged. Palestine remained a non self governing territory. As the native population the Palestinians have the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as subsequent UN resolutions have confirmed.

This is the backdrop for Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence that was in complete compliance with international law.

(COMMENT)

The general inference you mention is a split citation from the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960; and Chapter XI (UN Charter) Declarations Regarding non-Self-governeing Territories. It changes nothing in that the non-self-governing territory after the conclusion of the Mandate (May 1948), was declared independent by the National Council and Provisional Government of Israel. This was well before the APG declaration of September 1948. The territory controlled by Israel was no longer non-self-governing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Baggage or no baggage, the rule of law and the precedent for the ruling does not change.

Kosovo and Palestine were two completely different scenarios. Kosovo declared independence under considerable legal and political baggage. Palestine, however, had no legal baggage when it declared independence in 1948.

(COMMENT)

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.

• One people (APG) cannot claim independence (September 1948) over an area claimed previously declared independent (May 1948) by another people (National Council for the State of Israel).
• The APG cannot declare independence over territory it did not control. The Israeli Defense Force controlled a substantial portion of the territory identified as the recommended allocation for the Jewish State.
• The APG was political curiosity established by the Arab League (not a Palestinian Provisional Government and controlled by the Egyptian Military governorship) on 22 September 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The APG was dissoleved in 1959 by the Egyptian Government (not a Palestinian Provisional Government).
​

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed possession of Palestine. They merely held Palestine in trust until the people could stand alone. The mandate could not and did not change Palestine's legal status.

(COMMENT)

Well, you almost have it right. First it was not held in trust for the Palestinian People. The League of Nations Covenant said: "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." The term "Certain Communities" is not necessarily inclusive of the Palestinian People.

Nowhere in the League of Nation Covenant is the phrase "held in trust" used or implied. The Covenant says: "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Part II - Mandate Regime --- Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".

Accordingly, under the terms of the Mandate, the Mandatory is to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandate also provides for the recognition as a public body of a Jewish agency which is to advise and co-operate with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, the Administration, for its part, must facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​

The League of Nation Covenant does not address the Mandates specifically, nor any specific territory assigned to Palestine.

Britain failed to accomplish any of its goals and otherwise fucked up so bad that they transferred its trusteeship to UNSCOP and left. UNSCOP failed to assume its responsibilities.

(COMMENT)

The "Successor Government" immediately after the British Mandate was the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC). Many times you have made the accusation that the UNPCdid not accomplish its tasks; never taking into account that the Arab League Armies opened their offensive on the same day (15 May 1948) that the UNPC was to assume governmental responsibilities. One of the purpose to the Hostile Offensive by the Arab League was to defying the resolution of the General Assembly and engaged in a deliberate effort to politically alter by force the Partition Program through external interference. The UN Relieved the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 and HAVING ADOPTED a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

The people, the land, and the international borders remained unchanged. Palestine remained a non self governing territory. As the native population the Palestinians have the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as subsequent UN resolutions have confirmed.

This is the backdrop for Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence that was in complete compliance with international law.

(COMMENT)

The general inference you mention is a split citation from the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960; and Chapter XI (UN Charter) Declarations Regarding non-Self-governeing Territories. It changes nothing in that the non-self-governing territory after the conclusion of the Mandate (May 1948), was declared independent by the National Council and Provisional Government of Israel. This was well before the APG declaration of September 1948. The territory controlled by Israel was no longer non-self-governing.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.​

Could it be more bogus than the the government of Israel declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Israel is a foreign government established in Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Baggage or no baggage, the rule of law and the precedent for the ruling does not change.

Kosovo and Palestine were two completely different scenarios. Kosovo declared independence under considerable legal and political baggage. Palestine, however, had no legal baggage when it declared independence in 1948.

(COMMENT)

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.

• One people (APG) cannot claim independence (September 1948) over an area claimed previously declared independent (May 1948) by another people (National Council for the State of Israel).
• The APG cannot declare independence over territory it did not control. The Israeli Defense Force controlled a substantial portion of the territory identified as the recommended allocation for the Jewish State.
• The APG was political curiosity established by the Arab League (not a Palestinian Provisional Government and controlled by the Egyptian Military governorship) on 22 September 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The APG was dissoleved in 1959 by the Egyptian Government (not a Palestinian Provisional Government).
​

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed possession of Palestine. They merely held Palestine in trust until the people could stand alone. The mandate could not and did not change Palestine's legal status.

(COMMENT)

Well, you almost have it right. First it was not held in trust for the Palestinian People. The League of Nations Covenant said: "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." The term "Certain Communities" is not necessarily inclusive of the Palestinian People.

Nowhere in the League of Nation Covenant is the phrase "held in trust" used or implied. The Covenant says: "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Part II - Mandate Regime --- Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".

Accordingly, under the terms of the Mandate, the Mandatory is to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandate also provides for the recognition as a public body of a Jewish agency which is to advise and co-operate with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, the Administration, for its part, must facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​

The League of Nation Covenant does not address the Mandates specifically, nor any specific territory assigned to Palestine.

Britain failed to accomplish any of its goals and otherwise fucked up so bad that they transferred its trusteeship to UNSCOP and left. UNSCOP failed to assume its responsibilities.

(COMMENT)

The "Successor Government" immediately after the British Mandate was the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC). Many times you have made the accusation that the UNPCdid not accomplish its tasks; never taking into account that the Arab League Armies opened their offensive on the same day (15 May 1948) that the UNPC was to assume governmental responsibilities. One of the purpose to the Hostile Offensive by the Arab League was to defying the resolution of the General Assembly and engaged in a deliberate effort to politically alter by force the Partition Program through external interference. The UN Relieved the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 and HAVING ADOPTED a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

The people, the land, and the international borders remained unchanged. Palestine remained a non self governing territory. As the native population the Palestinians have the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as subsequent UN resolutions have confirmed.

This is the backdrop for Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence that was in complete compliance with international law.

(COMMENT)

The general inference you mention is a split citation from the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960; and Chapter XI (UN Charter) Declarations Regarding non-Self-governeing Territories. It changes nothing in that the non-self-governing territory after the conclusion of the Mandate (May 1948), was declared independent by the National Council and Provisional Government of Israel. This was well before the APG declaration of September 1948. The territory controlled by Israel was no longer non-self-governing.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.​

Could it be more bogus than the the government of Israel declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Israel is a foreign government established in Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

The "vast majority" of the people you're referring to are Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian beggars and squatters.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Baggage or no baggage, the rule of law and the precedent for the ruling does not change.

Kosovo and Palestine were two completely different scenarios. Kosovo declared independence under considerable legal and political baggage. Palestine, however, had no legal baggage when it declared independence in 1948.

(COMMENT)

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.

• One people (APG) cannot claim independence (September 1948) over an area claimed previously declared independent (May 1948) by another people (National Council for the State of Israel).
• The APG cannot declare independence over territory it did not control. The Israeli Defense Force controlled a substantial portion of the territory identified as the recommended allocation for the Jewish State.
• The APG was political curiosity established by the Arab League (not a Palestinian Provisional Government and controlled by the Egyptian Military governorship) on 22 September 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The APG was dissoleved in 1959 by the Egyptian Government (not a Palestinian Provisional Government).
​

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed possession of Palestine. They merely held Palestine in trust until the people could stand alone. The mandate could not and did not change Palestine's legal status.

(COMMENT)

Well, you almost have it right. First it was not held in trust for the Palestinian People. The League of Nations Covenant said: "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." The term "Certain Communities" is not necessarily inclusive of the Palestinian People.

Nowhere in the League of Nation Covenant is the phrase "held in trust" used or implied. The Covenant says: "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Part II - Mandate Regime --- Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".

Accordingly, under the terms of the Mandate, the Mandatory is to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandate also provides for the recognition as a public body of a Jewish agency which is to advise and co-operate with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, the Administration, for its part, must facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​

The League of Nation Covenant does not address the Mandates specifically, nor any specific territory assigned to Palestine.

Britain failed to accomplish any of its goals and otherwise fucked up so bad that they transferred its trusteeship to UNSCOP and left. UNSCOP failed to assume its responsibilities.

(COMMENT)

The "Successor Government" immediately after the British Mandate was the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC). Many times you have made the accusation that the UNPCdid not accomplish its tasks; never taking into account that the Arab League Armies opened their offensive on the same day (15 May 1948) that the UNPC was to assume governmental responsibilities. One of the purpose to the Hostile Offensive by the Arab League was to defying the resolution of the General Assembly and engaged in a deliberate effort to politically alter by force the Partition Program through external interference. The UN Relieved the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 and HAVING ADOPTED a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

The people, the land, and the international borders remained unchanged. Palestine remained a non self governing territory. As the native population the Palestinians have the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as subsequent UN resolutions have confirmed.

This is the backdrop for Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence that was in complete compliance with international law.

(COMMENT)

The general inference you mention is a split citation from the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960; and Chapter XI (UN Charter) Declarations Regarding non-Self-governeing Territories. It changes nothing in that the non-self-governing territory after the conclusion of the Mandate (May 1948), was declared independent by the National Council and Provisional Government of Israel. This was well before the APG declaration of September 1948. The territory controlled by Israel was no longer non-self-governing.

Most Respectfully,
R

• One people (APG) cannot claim independence (September 1948) over an area claimed previously declared independent (May 1948) by another people (National Council for the State of Israel).​

Oh really. What was Israel's defined territory and how was it acquired? It has to be more than just say so.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you have it so misinterpreted.

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.

Could it be more bogus than the the government of Israel declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Israel is a foreign government established in Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Agency was a brain-child of the Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference of 24 April 1920 under the League of Nations and imbedded requirement of Article 4, Mandate for Palestine, originally called the Palestine Office (Zionist Organization) in 1908. The Palestine Office was renamed and organized in 1929 to meet the Mandate requirement for an appropriate agency as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home; and a non-governmental organization (NGO) subject to the control of the Administration of Palestine by the Mandatory. This agency need sanctioned as an "appropriate agency" by the Zionist Organization. This appropriateness was also a requirement set forth in the San Remo Agreement nine years before it was created.

The association between the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization (WZO) was purely mandate requirement set forth by the Allied Powers. Not an invention of the WZO. The implication that it was a Jewish Inspired foreign activity is misinformation (not telling the whole story) by a anti-Zionist propaganda machine.

It should also be noted that by 1923, three separate attempts by the Mandatory were made was to establish an "Arab Agency" in Palestine, analogous to the Jewish Agency. However, the Arab Palestinians were not interested at that time in the Mandatory's effort to advance the establishment self-government in Palestine.

The establishment of Israel was pursuant to the guidance adopted by the UN. It was not a foreign government. It was a move by the Jewish Constituents which were all citizens of the territory under the UN guidance. This was not a foreign government. Again, that is misinformation by a propaganda machine "designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 110 (II) (1947)--- Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you have it so misinterpreted.

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.

Could it be more bogus than the the government of Israel declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Israel is a foreign government established in Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Agency was a brain-child of the Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference of 24 April 1920 under the League of Nations and imbedded requirement of Article 4, Mandate for Palestine, originally called the Palestine Office (Zionist Organization) in 1908. The Palestine Office was renamed and organized in 1929 to meet the Mandate requirement for an appropriate agency as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home; and a non-governmental organization (NGO) subject to the control of the Administration of Palestine by the Mandatory. This agency need sanctioned as an "appropriate agency" by the Zionist Organization. This appropriateness was also a requirement set forth in the San Remo Agreement nine years before it was created.

The association between the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization (WZO) was purely mandate requirement set forth by the Allied Powers. Not an invention of the WZO. The implication that it was a Jewish Inspired foreign activity is misinformation (not telling the whole story) by a anti-Zionist propaganda machine.

It should also be noted that by 1923, three separate attempts by the Mandatory were made was to establish an "Arab Agency" in Palestine, analogous to the Jewish Agency. However, the Arab Palestinians were not interested at that time in the Mandatory's effort to advance the establishment self-government in Palestine.

The establishment of Israel was pursuant to the guidance adopted by the UN. It was not a foreign government. It was a move by the Jewish Constituents which were all citizens of the territory under the UN guidance. This was not a foreign government. Again, that is misinformation by a propaganda machine "designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 110 (II) (1947)--- Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign project from day one.

All of that other crapola is irrelevant. It is all just part of the scam.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is often claimed by pro-Palestinians.

• One people (APG) cannot claim independence (September 1948) over an area claimed previously declared independent (May 1948) by another people (National Council for the State of Israel).​

​

Oh really. What was Israel's defined territory and how was it acquired? It has to be more than just say so.

(COMMENT)

Originally, at the time of the midnight 14/15 May 1948 cablegram declaring independence, the Declaration was made pursuant to the recommendations adopted and outlined in A/RES/181(II) - Future Government of Palestine.

Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate
At the first special session of the General Assembly, which began on 28 April 1947, five Arab countries — Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria — tried unsuccessfully to include in the agenda an item that would address “the termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its independence”. The Jewish case was presented by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, while the Arab Higher Committee spoke for the Palestinian Arabs. ----- The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. ----- On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to force by armed interference a different political outcome. On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River. More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State.​

Israel was a product of self-determination, Recommendations of the General Assembly, and the force armed conflict initiated by the local Arabs and the armies of the Arab League.

The territory was acquired through "Cession:" as explained in Post #132.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you have it so misinterpreted.

That is not true. The declaration of the All Palestine Government (APG) in 1948, was as bogus as it gets.

Could it be more bogus than the the government of Israel declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Israel is a foreign government established in Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Agency was a brain-child of the Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference of 24 April 1920 under the League of Nations and imbedded requirement of Article 4, Mandate for Palestine, originally called the Palestine Office (Zionist Organization) in 1908. The Palestine Office was renamed and organized in 1929 to meet the Mandate requirement for an appropriate agency as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home; and a non-governmental organization (NGO) subject to the control of the Administration of Palestine by the Mandatory. This agency need sanctioned as an "appropriate agency" by the Zionist Organization. This appropriateness was also a requirement set forth in the San Remo Agreement nine years before it was created.

The association between the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization (WZO) was purely mandate requirement set forth by the Allied Powers. Not an invention of the WZO. The implication that it was a Jewish Inspired foreign activity is misinformation (not telling the whole story) by a anti-Zionist propaganda machine.

It should also be noted that by 1923, three separate attempts by the Mandatory were made was to establish an "Arab Agency" in Palestine, analogous to the Jewish Agency. However, the Arab Palestinians were not interested at that time in the Mandatory's effort to advance the establishment self-government in Palestine.

The establishment of Israel was pursuant to the guidance adopted by the UN. It was not a foreign government. It was a move by the Jewish Constituents which were all citizens of the territory under the UN guidance. This was not a foreign government. Again, that is misinformation by a propaganda machine "designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 110 (II) (1947)--- Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign project from day one.

All of that other crapola is irrelevant. It is all just part of the scam.

'All of that other crapola".

Compelling, insightful and persuasive testimony, tinny. Your flailing about is so typical of the drop ten and punt, last gasp of desperation when your argument has failed and been stripped to its core element of rabid Joooooo hatreds,

Not facts, or demonstration or reasoned argument can convince you that your feverish and delusional preconceived notions are hopelessly derelict.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is a unsophisticated description.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign project from day one.

All of that other crapola is irrelevant. It is all just part of the scam.

(COMMENT)

• Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918)

.....ARTICLE 16. — Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.​

• Treaty of Sevres Part III (1920)

.....ARTICLE 97 --- Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.
.....ARTICLE 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty. Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

• Lausanne Treaty: Part I (1924)

.....ARTICLE 16 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

No matter when you look or where you look, it becomes immediately obvious to even the most casual of observers --- that that the territory in question was handed over to the Principal Allied Powers (not to the Palestinians in any way shape or form). It wasn't a mistake. The disposition of territory by the Allied Powers was no more "foreign" than the disposition of the territory was with the Ottoman Empire (the sovereign before the surrender).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is a unsophisticated description.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign project from day one.

All of that other crapola is irrelevant. It is all just part of the scam.

(COMMENT)

• Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918)

.....ARTICLE 16. — Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.​

• Treaty of Sevres Part III (1920)

.....ARTICLE 97 --- Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.
.....ARTICLE 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty. Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

• Lausanne Treaty: Part I (1924)

.....ARTICLE 16 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

No matter when you look or where you look, it becomes immediately obvious to even the most casual of observers --- that that the territory in question was handed over to the Principal Allied Powers (not to the Palestinians in any way shape or form). It wasn't a mistake. The disposition of territory by the Allied Powers was no more "foreign" than the disposition of the territory was with the Ottoman Empire (the sovereign before the surrender).

Most Respectfully,
R

how does all of this verbosity relate to my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is often claimed by pro-Palestinians.

• One people (APG) cannot claim independence (September 1948) over an area claimed previously declared independent (May 1948) by another people (National Council for the State of Israel).​

​

Oh really. What was Israel's defined territory and how was it acquired? It has to be more than just say so.

(COMMENT)

Originally, at the time of the midnight 14/15 May 1948 cablegram declaring independence, the Declaration was made pursuant to the recommendations adopted and outlined in A/RES/181(II) - Future Government of Palestine.

Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate
At the first special session of the General Assembly, which began on 28 April 1947, five Arab countries — Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria — tried unsuccessfully to include in the agenda an item that would address “the termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its independence”. The Jewish case was presented by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, while the Arab Higher Committee spoke for the Palestinian Arabs. ----- The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. ----- On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to force by armed interference a different political outcome. On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River. More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State.​

Israel was a product of self-determination, Recommendations of the General Assembly, and the force armed conflict initiated by the local Arabs and the armies of the Arab League.

The territory was acquired through "Cession:" as explained in Post #132.

Most Respectfully,
R

All that and you did not answer my question.