Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm beginning to think that you are using "colonialism" as an alternative to "imperialism." (Very similar, but not quite the same thing.)

In the case of Colonialism, involving the subjugation of one people over another (which you assert as the Arab Palestinian), neither the British or the Jewish people attempted to bring under control by conquest.

• The Jewish People did not have a a sovereignty under which Palestine could be brought under the control.
• The In the beginning, the Mandatory (the British) was not establishing control under its own control, but rather under the authority of the Allied Powers; eventually to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing.
​

While it is very true that the British (as the appointed Mandatory) had full powers of legislation and
of administration, --- limited by the terms of this mandate --- powers and control were limited by the terms of the
Mandate for Palestine. The Mandatory, not having sovereignty over the territory, required the consent of the Council of the League of Nations before taking action outside the terms of the mandate.

Certainly it could be argued that the British Government exhibited some aspects of Imperial Authority as the selected Mandatory, the selection of the Mandatory was by the authority of the Principal Allied Powers, through the Title and Rights acquired by Peace Treaty.

It was a British, Zionist joint effort. You need to keep up.

(COMMENT)

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty. In fact, the Mandate specifically prohibited that, as the surrendered Title and Rights were equally the providence of the entire set of Allied Powers. Whether you talk about the American colonies, the colony of Hong Kong, the British Indian Ocean Territory, or Gibraltar, the one thing they all had in common was British Sovereignty. And until 1948, the Jewish, for whatever mysterious power it represented, did not by proxy extend sovereignty in the name of any other.

Israel, under the recommendation of the General Assembly, within the parameters of UN Charter [Chapter I, Article 1(2)] declared sovereignty and independence; and successfully defended it against Arab League aggression, by breaking their respective frontiers in a manner inconsistent with the UN [Chapter I Articles 22(3) and 2(4)]. Oddly enough, all the immediate adjacent Regional Members of the Arab League were once under Mandates, to include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

While Israel has become the only Regional State to rank within the TOP 25 on the Human Development Index (HDI), having achieved position #18; nearly twice that of any Arab State; Jordan (the other half of the same territory, ranks 80th.

There is little doubt that in the back of Arab leadership minds, there is the potential for great profits if another mass exodus could be triggered. The break-up value of Israel in the hands of an Islamic Waqf could be pillaged and plundered with the application of a free Sharia Laws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.​

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm beginning to think that you are using "colonialism" as an alternative to "imperialism." (Very similar, but not quite the same thing.)

In the case of Colonialism, involving the subjugation of one people over another (which you assert as the Arab Palestinian), neither the British or the Jewish people attempted to bring under control by conquest.

• The Jewish People did not have a a sovereignty under which Palestine could be brought under the control.
• The In the beginning, the Mandatory (the British) was not establishing control under its own control, but rather under the authority of the Allied Powers; eventually to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing.
​

While it is very true that the British (as the appointed Mandatory) had full powers of legislation and
of administration, --- limited by the terms of this mandate --- powers and control were limited by the terms of the
Mandate for Palestine. The Mandatory, not having sovereignty over the territory, required the consent of the Council of the League of Nations before taking action outside the terms of the mandate.

Certainly it could be argued that the British Government exhibited some aspects of Imperial Authority as the selected Mandatory, the selection of the Mandatory was by the authority of the Principal Allied Powers, through the Title and Rights acquired by Peace Treaty.

It was a British, Zionist joint effort. You need to keep up.

(COMMENT)

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty. In fact, the Mandate specifically prohibited that, as the surrendered Title and Rights were equally the providence of the entire set of Allied Powers. Whether you talk about the American colonies, the colony of Hong Kong, the British Indian Ocean Territory, or Gibraltar, the one thing they all had in common was British Sovereignty. And until 1948, the Jewish, for whatever mysterious power it represented, did not by proxy extend sovereignty in the name of any other.

Israel, under the recommendation of the General Assembly, within the parameters of UN Charter [Chapter I, Article 1(2)] declared sovereignty and independence; and successfully defended it against Arab League aggression, by breaking their respective frontiers in a manner inconsistent with the UN [Chapter I Articles 22(3) and 2(4)]. Oddly enough, all the immediate adjacent Regional Members of the Arab League were once under Mandates, to include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

While Israel has become the only Regional State to rank within the TOP 25 on the Human Development Index (HDI), having achieved position #18; nearly twice that of any Arab State; Jordan (the other half of the same territory, ranks 80th.

There is little doubt that in the back of Arab leadership minds, there is the potential for great profits if another mass exodus could be triggered. The break-up value of Israel in the hands of an Islamic Waqf could be pillaged and plundered with the application of a free Sharia Laws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.​

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

You seem particularly upset that the usual pattern of Arab-Moslem settler-colonialism was interrupted by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Arabs-Moslems were unable to impose their politico-religious apartheid.

 

[Hollie]

Governance in Gaza'istan - of the islamist terrorist kind.

Hamas Terrorist Electrocuted in Tunnel as Gaza Families Await Power

The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas announced that one of its operatives was electrocuted to death while working on a tunnel in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, Israel Army Radio reported. The news comes as residents of Gaza who seek to rebuild their homes face difficulty in securing the necessaryelectricity and other resources, which are routinely appropriated by Hamas

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181​

Not true. Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented. There was no resolution 181 to defy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression​

The Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. This was not an aggression against Palestine.

How did that contravene the UN Charter?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:​

What is their definition of settler colonialism?

Link?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression​

The Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. This was not an aggression against Palestine.

How did that contravene the UN Charter?

​

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:​

What is their definition of settler colonialism?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."​

Indeed they failed. What were they supposed to do?

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.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations​

Who were these "peoples?" They were defined by article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive​

In the case of Palestine that would be the Palestinians. They had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as affirmed in subsequent UN resolutions.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no such thing (in formal language) as "settler colonialism." You have the link. Look for it yourself. A settler that sets up a colony is not necessarily under a colonial influence. They are mutually exclusive.

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:​

What is their definition of settler colonialism?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Please find that phase? Please find that discussion. There combination of the two words do not change the fact that the UN does not make the same judgement as you. I cannot give you a link to an informal combination of words.

Not true. Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented. There was no resolution 181 to defy.

(COMMENT)

Relative to A/RES/181(II), please re-read the Posting above and Posting 151. You always want to ignore the matters of record and manipulate the facts (UNPC Documentation).

It is also important to understand and recognize that the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (1988) makes use of A/RES/181 (II), including the UN Acknowledgement of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 --- A/RES/43/177; and as late as 4 December 2012 relative to the Status of Palestine in the United Nations A/RES/67/19 also makes reference to the Resolution 181 (II). That is a lost of recalling for some that you claim does not exist.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Article 30 pertains to Nationality. It is not in the territory section of the Treaty. The Title and Rights of the Territory are handled in Article 16 and pass to the Allied Powers, NOT the inhabitance of the formerly Enemy Occupied Territory.

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."​

Indeed they failed. What were they supposed to do?

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.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations​

Who were these "peoples?" They were defined by article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive​

In the case of Palestine that would be the Palestinians. They had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as affirmed in subsequent UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

The law pertaining to self-determination has nothing to do with the Treaty of Lausanne. You are grasping at straws here. The territory was transferred (Title and Rights) to the Allied Powers. The Mandate was issued by the Council of the League of Nations. They understood what Article 22 meant and how it applied.

It was the decision of the Allied Powers and the Authority of the Council of the League of Nations that the Mandatory was tasked (not some the Palestinians).

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.​

We have discussed many time that you cannot use Section II Article 30 as a basis to void Section I Article 16. Section I deals with the Territories and Section II deals with the Nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no such thing (in formal language) as "settler colonialism." You have the link. Look for it yourself. A settler that sets up a colony is not necessarily under a colonial influence. They are mutually exclusive.

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:​

What is their definition of settler colonialism?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Please find that phase? Please find that discussion. There combination of the two words do not change the fact that the UN does not make the same judgement as you. I cannot give you a link to an informal combination of words.

Not true. Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented. There was no resolution 181 to defy.

(COMMENT)

Relative to A/RES/181(II), please re-read the Posting above and Posting 151. You always want to ignore the matters of record and manipulate the facts (UNPC Documentation).

It is also important to understand and recognize that the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (1988) makes use of A/RES/181 (II), including the UN Acknowledgement of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 --- A/RES/43/177; and as late as 4 December 2012 relative to the Status of Palestine in the United Nations A/RES/67/19 also makes reference to the Resolution 181 (II). That is a lost of recalling for some that you claim does not exist.

Most Respectfully,
R

Please find that phase? Please find that discussion.​

Though often conflated with colonialism more generally, settler colonialism is a distinct imperial formation. Both colonialism and settler colonialism are premised on exogenous domination, but only setter colonialism seeks to replace the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers (usually from the colonial metropole). This new society needs land, and so settler colonialism depends primarily on access to territory. This is achieved by various means, either through treaties with indigenous inhabitants or simply by “taking possession.” Britain, for example, implemented the doctrine of “terra nullius” (“land belonging to no one”) to claim sovereignty over Australia. The entire continent was thereby declared legally uninhabited, despite millennia of Aboriginal occupation.

As this work emphasizes, settler colonialism is premised on occupation and the elimination of the native population, while colonialism is primarily about conquest. In the oft-cited words of one influential scholar, settler colonialism is a structure rather than an event (see Wolfe 1999, cited under General Overview). In this sense, settler colonialism does not really ever “end.”

Settler Colonialism - Anthropology - Oxford Bibliographies

 

[Shusha]

The Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. This was not an aggression against Palestine.

The Arab armies entered the territory to provide military support to Arabs and to prevent the formation of the Jewish National Home (eliminate the possibility of Jewish self-determination in the territory). It was most certainly aggression against both the intent of the Mandate -- which was to provide for a Jewish National Home -- and the rights of the Jewish people to that homeland. It was direct aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Jewish Nation.

 

[Shusha]

They had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity as affirmed in subsequent UN resolutions.

You should read and pay attention to your own words. Yes, THEY did (do) have the right to self-determination without external interference (like the external interference of Arab bloody armies entering their territory!). THEY have the right to independence and sovereignty and territorial integrity.

They, of course, meaning the Jewish people.

If Syria and Iraq and Jordan and Lebanon can exist, despite having (had) Jews resident there -- and exist as Muslim Arab nations -- why can't Israel exist -- and exist as a Jewish nation -- despite having Arab Muslims and Christians living there?

 

[Shusha]

settler colonialism is premised on occupation and the elimination of the native population...

Hmmmm. That seems awfully familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Something about "driving the Jews into the sea".

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel, a Settler Colonial State

 

[Shusha]

Israel, a National Liberation Movement of an Indigenous People

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm beginning to think that you are using "colonialism" as an alternative to "imperialism." (Very similar, but not quite the same thing.)

In the case of Colonialism, involving the subjugation of one people over another (which you assert as the Arab Palestinian), neither the British or the Jewish people attempted to bring under control by conquest.

• The Jewish People did not have a a sovereignty under which Palestine could be brought under the control.
• The In the beginning, the Mandatory (the British) was not establishing control under its own control, but rather under the authority of the Allied Powers; eventually to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing.
​

While it is very true that the British (as the appointed Mandatory) had full powers of legislation and
of administration, --- limited by the terms of this mandate --- powers and control were limited by the terms of the
Mandate for Palestine. The Mandatory, not having sovereignty over the territory, required the consent of the Council of the League of Nations before taking action outside the terms of the mandate.

Certainly it could be argued that the British Government exhibited some aspects of Imperial Authority as the selected Mandatory, the selection of the Mandatory was by the authority of the Principal Allied Powers, through the Title and Rights acquired by Peace Treaty.

It was a British, Zionist joint effort. You need to keep up.

(COMMENT)

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty. In fact, the Mandate specifically prohibited that, as the surrendered Title and Rights were equally the providence of the entire set of Allied Powers. Whether you talk about the American colonies, the colony of Hong Kong, the British Indian Ocean Territory, or Gibraltar, the one thing they all had in common was British Sovereignty. And until 1948, the Jewish, for whatever mysterious power it represented, did not by proxy extend sovereignty in the name of any other.

Israel, under the recommendation of the General Assembly, within the parameters of UN Charter [Chapter I, Article 1(2)] declared sovereignty and independence; and successfully defended it against Arab League aggression, by breaking their respective frontiers in a manner inconsistent with the UN [Chapter I Articles 22(3) and 2(4)]. Oddly enough, all the immediate adjacent Regional Members of the Arab League were once under Mandates, to include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

While Israel has become the only Regional State to rank within the TOP 25 on the Human Development Index (HDI), having achieved position #18; nearly twice that of any Arab State; Jordan (the other half of the same territory, ranks 80th.

There is little doubt that in the back of Arab leadership minds, there is the potential for great profits if another mass exodus could be triggered. The break-up value of Israel in the hands of an Islamic Waqf could be pillaged and plundered with the application of a free Sharia Laws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.​

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

Having to make up definitions now to suit your stance. Were is it stated that "settler colonialism is the replacement of the local population by foriegn settlers". And when did Syria and Egypt become palestinian ?

Since when were 300,000 arab muslims removed from their homes by Israel in 1947, as Israel was not even in existence. And the history books show that the arab muslims left at the demand of the arab league.

Apart from you and a few other anti semitic Jew haters who calls Israel a settler colonial state

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, you and I must agree to disagree. I'll take the United Nationals University definition, and understanding, and you take your Pro-Palestinians definition:

Continuing colonialism

The wave of decolonization that swept around the world in the latter half of the 20th century was once heralded as one of the great liberating movements in history. Yet, few seem to realize that colonialism is still with us. As of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories (NSGTs)” — areas in which the population has not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 16 NSGTs, home to nearly 2 million people, are spread across the globe. They remain under the tutelage of former colonial powers (currently referred to as “administering powers”), such as the UK, the USA and France.

Most of the NSGTs feature as only small dots on the world map but are in fact prominent players on the world stage. Some act as the world’s leading financial centres, with GDP per capita amongst the world’s top 10 (e.g., the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), some constitute vital bastions for regional security (e.g., Guam), and there are those whose geographical location has made them prone to diplomatic disputes (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas).

A UN committee on decolonization does exist (Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization), under the purview of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Special Political and Decolonization Committee). Its mission is to oversee the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960).

The world underwent a political renovation following the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and the number of sovereign UN Member States has skyrocketed from the original 51 to 193. However, the 50-plus years since the founding of the United Nations have proved to be insufficient to eradicate a centuries-old structure of dominance. This is in spite of the advancement of legal systems based on the notions of the sovereign equality of states and human rights prevalent in the contemporary world.

Decolonization, as bluntly put by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, remains an unfinished business; an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long. In solidarity with the peoples of the NSGTs, the present decade (2010-2020) has been declared the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (as the past two decades have proved inadequate to ensure the disappearance of such an archaic concept).
SOURCE: UN University Residual Colonialism In The 21St Century 2012•05•29 John Quintero

Remember, I said there is not application of the C-24 List and todays Israel.

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty.

That is true. "Colonialism" is control over the local population and resources.

However, "settler colonialism" is the replacement of the local population by foreign settlers. This was not particularly the goal of the British but it was for the Zionists. It happened under the British but not as a policy. As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed. No state was created. No Jewish homeland was created. The British left Palestine in chaos.

After the failed resolution 181, the Zionists actively commenced its settler colonial project. Between then and the time the foreigners declared Israel in Palestine about three hundred thousand Palestinians were removed from their homes. That cleansing of the Palestinians continued through the 1948 war and continues to today. Israel now is regularly called a settler colonial state.

(COMMENT)

A few more points we will have to agree to disagree on:

• The General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) is an adopted set of Recommendations. It can neither succeed or fail. It can only be adopted with recommendations either implemented or not, partially, or in full.

• Zionist activity is not a formal project. Activities initiated by the Jewish Agency are formal projects and programs.

• Between the time Resolution 181(II) was adopted and the time the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government declared the sovereignty and independence of the State of Israel a Non-International Conflict (NIAC) between wherein both parties to the conflict where in the same venue, neither a State Actor.

• After May 1948 and the Arab League forces crossing the threshold of their borders with the intent to engage Israeli Forces, the conflict between Israel and Arab League Members was an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Article 2 A/RES/3314 (XXIX)

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
​

• It is not accurate to say that the British "As a Mandatory power charged with creating an independent state it completely failed."

• The British as Mandatory, was not tasked to "create" an independent state." It was mandated to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing institutions.
​

• In March 1946 as the Mandatory, "His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."​

I realize that, as far as the establishment of a bully state, the Arab Palestinians think that Palestine (formerly the territory under Mandate) is all about "them." BUT, it is NOT. On 15 MAY 1948, there were two-states established in the territory under the Mandate that did not exist in 10 August 1922, when the Mandate was written (Jordan and Israel).

(NEW POINT)

It is not quite accurate to say that "The British left Palestine in chaos." On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein; and (contrary to the Charter) use force to secure solution and territory they could not acquire through peaceful means. Attempting to take by force that which was NOT in their control and NOT subject to a declaration of independence under the right of self-determination. AND, these Powerful Arab Forces were attempting to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

On 15 May 1948, it was the Arab League that generated the chaos, with powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, working hard to defy General Assembly Resolution 181​

Not true. Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented. There was no resolution 181 to defy.

Then there was no means of the arab muslims to create palestine in 1988 as they used 181 as the means to do so. It was not up to the arab muslims or the Jews haters of today to declare 181 illegal or invalid and say it never existed. When did the UN reject 181 then, as they were the only body that could do so. The arab muslims having rejected any talks on the subject should have been sent a message from the UN to remove themselves from UN mandate lands forthwith or face being forcibly removed.