Civilians vs Combatents

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.

• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​

​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that. But the Arab Palestinian right does not preempt the same right to self-determination that any other peoples have; including that of the Jewish People. The Arab Palestinians do not have a superior claim to that of the Jewish Citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arab Palestinians rights cannot interfere with the Jewish rights.

If this case, the territorial dispute depends on significant facts that occurred, or a treaty concluded, nearly a century ago. The doctrine of inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] has become well-established: “in such cases the situation in question must be appraised, and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today.”

The ArabPalestinians cannot exert the right of self-determination from the outside inward. That is to say, the people called Arab-Palestinians, who are physically resident outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Israel, cannot claim the right of self-determination to Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.

• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​

​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that. But the Arab Palestinian right does not preempt the same right to self-determination that any other peoples have; including that of the Jewish People. The Arab Palestinians do not have a superior claim to that of the Jewish Citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arab Palestinians rights cannot interfere with the Jewish rights.

If this case, the territorial dispute depends on significant facts that occurred, or a treaty concluded, nearly a century ago. The doctrine of inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] has become well-established: “in such cases the situation in question must be appraised, and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today.”

The ArabPalestinians cannot exert the right of self-determination from the outside inward. That is to say, the people called Arab-Palestinians, who are physically resident outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Israel, cannot claim the right of self-determination to Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that.​

Bullcrap, you always do. You always claim that colonial settlers have superior rights than the native population. Whenever I ask you to prove your point, you dance around the Issue.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you have it wrong.

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory​

Not "the territory," Palestinian territory. Israel cannot claim that territory just by say so.

(COMMENT)

It was NOT Palestinian territory. It was territory formerly under the Mandate to Palestine. No only did the Israelis make a Declaration of Independence, the process leading up to that was based on the UN Step Preparatory to Independence, and then the State of Israel had to fight a war of independence with the aggressor nation of the Arab League as well as the irregular forces (Asymmetric) of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Making an argument that is based on the assumption it was "Palestinian Territory" will lead you astray every time.

It was never under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arabs. The rights and title were surrendered to the Allied Powers by the former sovereign to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you have it wrong.

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory​

Not "the territory," Palestinian territory. Israel cannot claim that territory just by say so.

(COMMENT)

It was NOT Palestinian territory. It was territory formerly under the Mandate to Palestine. No only did the Israelis make a Declaration of Independence, the process leading up to that was based on the UN Step Preparatory to Independence, and then the State of Israel had to fight a war of independence with the aggressor nation of the Arab League as well as the irregular forces (Asymmetric) of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Making an argument that is based on the assumption it was "Palestinian Territory" will lead you astray every time.

It was never under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arabs. The rights and title were surrendered to the Allied Powers by the former sovereign to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

Making an argument that is based on the assumption it was "Palestinian Territory" will lead you astray every time.​

So you are saying that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinian citizens? Sovereignty belongs to the Palestinians as UN resolutions affirm.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have always claim that the "right to self-determination" is the same for all peoples. There is no authority that gives the Arab Palestinians the right to usurp Israeli territory.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.

• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​

​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that. But the Arab Palestinian right does not preempt the same right to self-determination that any other peoples have; including that of the Jewish People. The Arab Palestinians do not have a superior claim to that of the Jewish Citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arab Palestinians rights cannot interfere with the Jewish rights.

If this case, the territorial dispute depends on significant facts that occurred, or a treaty concluded, nearly a century ago. The doctrine of inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] has become well-established: “in such cases the situation in question must be appraised, and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today.”

The ArabPalestinians cannot exert the right of self-determination from the outside inward. That is to say, the people called Arab-Palestinians, who are physically resident outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Israel, cannot claim the right of self-determination to Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that.​

Bullcrap, you always do. You always claim that colonial settlers have superior rights than the native population. Whenever I ask you to prove your point, you dance around the Issue.

(COMMENT)

That was never danced around. The Israelis declared independence BEFORE the Arab Palestinians over the territory that was recommended by the UN.

What I have said, is that people like you cannot apply 21st Century Law or Concepts (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)(DRIPS) to processes decided in the 20th Century --- inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] . It is NOT applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

So you are saying that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinian citizens? Sovereignty belongs to the Palestinians as UN resolutions affirm.

(Well, "belong" is not the right word but...)

ALL the citizens -- not just the Arab Muslim citizens. There were (are) TWO groups of citizens living in the territory attempting to achieve some sort of self-determination. The right to sovereignty belongs to both groups of "Palestinians".

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a very serious mistake.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you have it wrong.

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory​

Not "the territory," Palestinian territory. Israel cannot claim that territory just by say so.

(COMMENT)

It was NOT Palestinian territory. It was territory formerly under the Mandate to Palestine. No only did the Israelis make a Declaration of Independence, the process leading up to that was based on the UN Step Preparatory to Independence, and then the State of Israel had to fight a war of independence with the aggressor nation of the Arab League as well as the irregular forces (Asymmetric) of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Making an argument that is based on the assumption it was "Palestinian Territory" will lead you astray every time.

It was never under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arabs. The rights and title were surrendered to the Allied Powers by the former sovereign to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

Making an argument that is based on the assumption it was "Palestinian Territory" will lead you astray every time.​

So you are saying that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinian citizens? Sovereignty belongs to the Palestinians as UN resolutions affirm.

(COMMENT)

There is no law by any agency that has granted sovereignty to the Arab Palestinians to any section of territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine. The UN did: "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; in A/RES/67/19 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly - Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4/12/2012). Can you show me something after 4 December 2012 that updates this affirmation?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have always claim that the "right to self-determination" is the same for all peoples. There is no authority that gives the Arab Palestinians the right to usurp Israeli territory.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.

• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​

​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that. But the Arab Palestinian right does not preempt the same right to self-determination that any other peoples have; including that of the Jewish People. The Arab Palestinians do not have a superior claim to that of the Jewish Citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arab Palestinians rights cannot interfere with the Jewish rights.

If this case, the territorial dispute depends on significant facts that occurred, or a treaty concluded, nearly a century ago. The doctrine of inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] has become well-established: “in such cases the situation in question must be appraised, and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today.”

The ArabPalestinians cannot exert the right of self-determination from the outside inward. That is to say, the people called Arab-Palestinians, who are physically resident outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Israel, cannot claim the right of self-determination to Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that.​

Bullcrap, you always do. You always claim that colonial settlers have superior rights than the native population. Whenever I ask you to prove your point, you dance around the Issue.

(COMMENT)

That was never danced around. The Israelis declared independence BEFORE the Arab Palestinians over the territory that was recommended by the UN.

What I have said, is that people like you cannot apply 21st Century Law or Concepts (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)(DRIPS) to processes decided in the 20th Century --- inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] . It is NOT applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R

That was never danced around. The Israelis declared independence BEFORE the Arab Palestinians over the territory that was recommended by the UN.​

You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.

 

[Shusha]

You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.

Oh, give me a break. If that were true, then Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are not States either.

 

[Shusha]

You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.

And furthermore, the "Palestinians" did not cede their land to anyone. One group of "Palestinians" achieved sovereignty. And one group is still failing to achieve sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.

And furthermore, the "Palestinians" did not cede their land to anyone. One group of "Palestinians" achieved sovereignty. And one group is still failing to achieve sovereignty.

Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship makes everyone equal.

Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The idea of the Arab Palestinian being superior to the Jewish Palestinian given citizenship under the same Citizenship Order, is called something else.

Stop whining and figure out a way to improve the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people instead of attempting incite and ferment conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship makes everyone equal.

Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The idea of the Arab Palestinian being superior to the Jewish Palestinian given citizenship under the same Citizenship Order, is called something else.

Stop whining and figure out a way to improve the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people instead of attempting incite and ferment conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

BTW, the immigration policy was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. That was a violation of their rights.

 

[Shusha]

Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.

That's a sword which cuts both ways though. If you want to say that the only "legitimate Palestinians" are those who lived in the territory prior to 1923, or 1900 or 1850 or 1782 or 200 BCE or whatever number you want to assign to the problem, that's all fine and dandy but you must apply it equally to both sides.

And the problem with THAT is you still end up with two groups of "Palestinians" -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslim people. (Well, unless you want to go back far enough that it was JUST the Jewish people but I assume you don't want to go that far back). And both those groups of "Palestinians" have rights to self-determination and sovereignty over the territory. And part of sovereignty is permitting immigration, or not.

You simply can not require rights for one group while denying them to the other.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am often reminded that:

"As long as a society is divided, security sector reform can never achieve its main objective, which is to
provide security and justice for all. "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Towards Palestinian National Recognition
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © . . . .Ramallah and Geneva, Second Edition 2011
​

I always thought that the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) was a little too optimistic when they wrote that. They imply, by using the term of "society," that the Israelis and Arab Palestinians are "one" (the same people), just of a different mind. I tend to think the entire Middle East as an organism, infected with a virus. As Erin Daly (Widener University Delaware Law School) and Jeremy Sarkin (Professor of Law at the University of South Africa) once wrote:

“Reconciliation is the soil in which democracy takes root. Democracy can thrive only where the disparate factions in society have chosen to be governed in common. Democracy requires that the disappointed minority accede to the will of the majority – a concession that can happen only if the minority and the majority are sufficiently reconciled that they accept each other’s presence in the polity and the content of each other’s choices as legitimate, even if they don’t agree with them.”

“Societies that produce despots are polarized ones in which enough members are disaffected that they are willing to turn against, or support, a regime that turns against their fellow citizens. If reconciliation is going to have a deterrent effect it must be reconciliation among the people, not just between the leaders. (…) Despotism will be deterred when the people will have enough connection to one another that they will not allow a despot to divide them; when the people have enough respect for human rights that they will not tolerate abusive means even to achieve ends that they might otherwise like; when they are sufficiently invested in their communities and in their nations that they ask questions and demand accountability from their leaders.”
​

The Arab-Palestinian people have not yet achieved enough connection with the Israelis that they will not allow a despot to divide them. Instead, as the Arab-Palestinians continue a level of belligerents that threaten the peace and security of Israel, the longer it will take for the Arab-Palestinian to develop a basic foundation on which they can "stand alone" (Article 22 Criteria).

(COMMENT)
Look, you just don't understand the criteria. You make it up so as to include you Palestine.

No, I include Palestine because it is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun. It is what it is what it is. The sky is blue and Palestine is ruled by "Israel."

(COMMENT)

Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk. As you know, Article 33(1) plays a major rule in the "reconciliation" process when settling disputes between peacefully using the generally recognized international adjudication process. But some of these processes, like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), are cut short because Article 92 stipulates that the ICJ may only issue binding rulings in disputes between states.

Ever since the Declaration of 1988, the international community had debated the contention of Palestinian Statehood; on both the political level and on the application of law level. The fact that the UN has only granted accord to Palestine "non-member observer" State status (A/RES/67/19); as opposed fully membership endorsement. BUT there is a rub (friction) found in the Resolution.

"Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;"

In fact, upon close examination of the Resolution (on the Status of Palestine), it does not say that there actually exists a "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;" BUT only "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence" on that territory.

I suppose that the very first thing that should be determined is whether or not the State of Palestine has actually emerged as having a state population, state territory, effective government.

The formation of a new State is, as will be remembered from former statements, a matter of fact and not of law. It is through recognition, which is a matter of law, that such new State becomes subject to International Law. As soon as recognition is given, the new State's territory is recognized as the territory of a subject of International Law, and it matters not how this territory is acquired before the recognition. I Hence also, the acquisition of territory by a new State was not regarded as a mode of acquisition of territory in international law, though revolt was a method of losing territory: 'Revolt followed by secession is a mode of losing territory to which no mode of acquisition corresponds.'
SOURCE: Page 99, IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Yes, that is an interesting opinion. If statehood is a "matter of fact and not of law," THEN could you be correct? And does that have an implication on whether or not the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is actually a state "in fact?"

IF --- the argument is that the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" cannot exercise the powers of government because of the control exerted by the Israelis over the territory, THEN --- the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is not a state and therefore cannot enter into treaties. Therefore have no case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice.

IF --- the argument is that the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" have created a state (in fact) then it has exercised "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967," as reaffirmed by the General Assembly Resolution 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19); THEN --- again have not validity in the complaint the Israel prevents independence and self-government.

You will also notice a peculiar remark in :

Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status,

AND​

Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;

Who actually is "recognized" by whom as the government --- reaffirmed --- representing the people of Israel in 2012. If there is a struggle within the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" --- who is it with? It was the PLO that declared independence for the Palestinian People --- creating the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." If the PLO recognized as the representative to the UN in 2012, remaining so continuously to this day, then what is the relationship of the people to the PLO? Who "is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun?"

There are lots of questions that need to be resolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.​

And my claim is correct.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

a ) a permanent population
Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.

b ) a defined territory
Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

c ) government
Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.

It was in 1948 as the International laws of the time prevailed and made them all native.

The LoN defined the territory in 1922 and that was the territory that Israel claimed


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.


No it was founded by the Jews with the legal right under international laws to do so

LIAR as they enter into negotiations and then run away when they don't get what they demand




Want to try again only this time don't twist the facts to suit your POV.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a ridiculous argument.

• Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.​

​

And my claim is correct.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed. This is, in technical terms, a “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty (as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory"). Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state. I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.

a ) a permanent population
Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.

(COMMENT)

• Where does statehood or sovereignty require the status of an "indigenous" "permanent population?"
• The Allied powers, through the Mandate, facilitated immigration and citizenship to all Jewish People willing to establish a Jewish National Home.
• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.

b ) a defined territory
Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

(COMMENT)

Israel was initially identified as the Jewish State by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) in the 1947 Recommendations to the General Assembly. The outline for the partition was adopted. On the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power, the Provisional Government Declared Independence. However, the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee attempted to overthrow the government of Israel by invading the former Mandate territory. Today, while the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt to argue on a theoretical basis that Israel has no borders, in fact, there is ample physical evidence on the ground of a exclusive authority over the territory bounded by a recognized demarcation.

NOTE: State of Palestine, even the 1988 State of Palestine, has no exclusively controlled territory.

c ) government
Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

Actually the Jewish Agency was conceptualized by the Allied Powers, and required by the Allied Powers to be recognized by Zionist Organization. (The Jewish Agency was not created and inserted into to the Mandate by the WZO.) Israel is a parliamentary democracy. However, there is no requirement for the State to derive its legitimacy from the people. Saudi Arabia (as an example) is a Monarchy, its legitimacy is passed on generationally by blood.

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No... The Arab Palestinians have not exercised such control that was necessary to establish peace and security.

How many times have you heard the Pro-Arab Palestinians say something derogatory about the Jewish People, or vindictive and uncomplimentary about the Israeli -- or commit a violent and/or destructive act -- justify it by saying the Israelis had 'made' the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) mad?
​

The HoAP are forever attempting to pursue some hostile agenda or action, using the excuse that the Israelis are preventing them achieving their "rights." The perpetual victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed. This is, in technical terms, a “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty (as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory"). Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state. I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.​

Indeed, the Declarative Theory along with the Theory of Popular Sovereignty are the dominant theories in contemporary international law.

Eighty or so Palestinian officials declared independence in 1948 from the Mandate that left in the preceding months. They declared independence on their own land, inside their own international borders, and in the name of the Palestinians who were Palestine's legal "permanent population." They had every right to declare independence. They were recognized as a state by five other states and many in the "East" and elsewhere still recognize Palestine as a state.

They could not exercise their rights because they were under occupation.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.​

Hold on there, Rocco, you are just saying that without thinking. Can the French declare statehood in Britain?

They were not Palestinians but Egyptians, they tried to claim land already claimed and so lost. Nothing to do with being occupied as they had no legal rights to the lands in the first place. Read the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne for an explanation.

The only reason the arab league did this is because they knew they were losing the war they started and were due to end up looking ineffective fools. I guess nothing changes.


Yes they can and have, only to be denied by the British. The old might is right maxim, you hold on to what you own or die trying.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a ridiculous argument.

• Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.​

​

And my claim is correct.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed. This is, in technical terms, a “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty (as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory"). Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state. I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.

a ) a permanent population
Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.

(COMMENT)

• Where does statehood or sovereignty require the status of an "indigenous" "permanent population?"
• The Allied powers, through the Mandate, facilitated immigration and citizenship to all Jewish People willing to establish a Jewish National Home.
• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.

b ) a defined territory
Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

(COMMENT)

Israel was initially identified as the Jewish State by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) in the 1947 Recommendations to the General Assembly. The outline for the partition was adopted. On the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power, the Provisional Government Declared Independence. However, the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee attempted to overthrow the government of Israel by invading the former Mandate territory. Today, while the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt to argue on a theoretical basis that Israel has no borders, in fact, there is ample physical evidence on the ground of a exclusive authority over the territory bounded by a recognized demarcation.

NOTE: State of Palestine, even the 1988 State of Palestine, has no exclusively controlled territory.

c ) government
Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

Actually the Jewish Agency was conceptualized by the Allied Powers, and required by the Allied Powers to be recognized by Zionist Organization. (The Jewish Agency was not created and inserted into to the Mandate by the WZO.) Israel is a parliamentary democracy. However, there is no requirement for the State to derive its legitimacy from the people. Saudi Arabia (as an example) is a Monarchy, its legitimacy is passed on generationally by blood.

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No... The Arab Palestinians have not exercised such control that was necessary to establish peace and security.

How many times have you heard the Pro-Arab Palestinians say something derogatory about the Jewish People, or vindictive and uncomplimentary about the Israeli -- or commit a violent and/or destructive act -- justify it by saying the Israelis had 'made' the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) mad?
​

The HoAP are forever attempting to pursue some hostile agenda or action, using the excuse that the Israelis are preventing them achieving their "rights." The perpetual victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

On the land they currently possess, and that is all. They cant claim your home in the US is part of Palestine for example. And until they accept the full terms of those UN resolutions and agree peace and mutual borders their possible lands are getting smaller each year. They have partial sovereignty because to go the whole way would result in a loss of all monies, and having to give up violence and terrorism for peace and work. They are the ones negating their own rights as you cant hand them sovereignty if they don't have the power to put it to use.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm glad you agree.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.

Hold on there, Rocco, you are just saying that without thinking. Can the French declare statehood in Britain?

(COMMENT)

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory before the Arabs Palestinian, then the All Palestine Government claim does not cover the territory to which the Israeli exercised self-determination.

• This entire idea that Israel is inside the former territory under Mandate, and therefore is somehow corrupted, is bogus. The former territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied was not sovereign territory under the authority of exclusive jurisdiction of any ArabPalestinian Authority.

• The All Palestine Government had no defined territory, as it had no exclusive jurisdiction of any former territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.
​

This is all a long-standing attempt by Arab Palestinians to try and establish some prior claim over the territory and to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People who followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence valid at the time of the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory​

Not "the territory," Palestinian territory. Israel cannot claim that territory just by say so.

That is right Israel declared first over the territory that was the former Mandate of Palestine as was their legal right under International law and the UN charter. The arab muslims had no legal right to that land as they had denied UN res 181 many times, and then invaded the Mandate of Palestine because they wanted the whole of the M.E. for an islamonazi caliphate.

They had no legal reasons to support their claims, and still don't as the laws giving the land to the Jews are still in existence

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship makes everyone equal.

Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The idea of the Arab Palestinian being superior to the Jewish Palestinian given citizenship under the same Citizenship Order, is called something else.

Stop whining and figure out a way to improve the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people instead of attempting incite and ferment conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

BTW, the immigration policy was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. That was a violation of their rights.

What rights and when did they become rights, or is this another attempt at using 2010 international laws retrospectively back in 1920. When will you stop doing this, when it looks like you will be made homeless, stateless and unwanted by everyone.
Under the international laws of the time no arab muslim rights were violated by the Mandate or the declaration by Israel in 1948

 

[Phoenall]

Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.

That's a sword which cuts both ways though. If you want to say that the only "legitimate Palestinians" are those who lived in the territory prior to 1923, or 1900 or 1850 or 1782 or 200 BCE or whatever number you want to assign to the problem, that's all fine and dandy but you must apply it equally to both sides.

And the problem with THAT is you still end up with two groups of "Palestinians" -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslim people. (Well, unless you want to go back far enough that it was JUST the Jewish people but I assume you don't want to go that far back). And both those groups of "Palestinians" have rights to self-determination and sovereignty over the territory. And part of sovereignty is permitting immigration, or not.

You simply can not require rights for one group while denying them to the other.

Just go back to 1099 and you see that there were no arab muslims extant in Palestine. Then you see that the Jews have existed on the land uninterrupted for over 4,500 years, followed by the Roman Christians with under 2,000 years and finally the arab muslims who existed for just 22 years as sovereign owners of the land. The historical evidence proves that the arab muslims flooded Palestine in the years between 1920 and 1967 as there is no way a third world nation could manage a population increase better than that of a civilised nation with full health benefits and aftercare. According to team Palestine every female between the ages of 12 and 50 gave birth to triplets every year and not one person died of any causes during that period.


You forget these are Nazi's we are dealing with and they can refuse certain groups their rights as they hate them with a vengance