RE: corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines
※→ P F Tinmore,
et al,
Yes, all reasonable questions. Let's examine them; piece by piece.
Jerusalem, settlements, and borders are land/border issues.
(COMMENT)
This establishes the temporal origin.
• The specific question of Jerusalem comes into play when General Allenby enters Jerusalem, on 11 December 1917. In that time perspective → it is 10 month prior to the The Armistice of Mudros, 30 October 1918, which marked the end of hostilities, in the Middle Eastern theatre of operations between the defeated Ottoman Empire and the Allies Powers of in The Great War (World War
I).
Notice:
The territorial control of Jerusalem was in the hands of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) well before the end of The Great War.
Elements of the British Egyptian Expeditionary Force and Hejazian Sherifial Forces (Prince Feisal) capture Damascus on 1 October 1918; coming under the control of the OETA. The entire territory (Aleppo to Cairo) is under the effective control of the Allied Forces even befor the San Remo Convention; which among other things, plots the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The control of the Middle East does not pass into the hands of the Arab inhabitance under OETA.
• By "settlements" → I assume you mean the Area "C" Settlement which are now under full Israeli civil administration and security control. This would be part of the territory seized by Jordan in 1940, and Annexed by Jordan in 1950. In 1988, the entire territory of the West Bank
(which includeds Area "C") was officially politically and diplomatically abandon the West Bank, effectively leaving it into the Hands of the Israel
(having Occuppied the territory in 1967) in what HM King Hussein termed the "Disengagement from the West Bank."
• By "borders" I assume you mean either:
※ The western portion of Area "B" of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
※ The 1967 border, considered by the current Negotiation Affairs Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to be along the 1949 Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Line dissolved in 1994 by Treaty, that was effective on 4 June 1967.
As you can see, the Arab Palestinians did not have control of the territory being discussed. No matter how you slice it, Whether you apply law or not, the fact of the matter is that the Arab Palestinains never had anything resembling the a territory they could call theirs.
This brings up some points. The Palestinians have the right to control their land and borders. (That territorial integrity thing under international law.)
(COMMENT)
YES!
Absolutely true IF they sovereignty over any territory. But you cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have a territory to begin with.
Does Palestine control its land and borders? De facto, no. De jure, yes. If the Palestinians did not have the right to control their land/borders they would not be at the negotiations table.
(COMMENT)
A qualified YES!
IF you refer to Area "A" and the Gaza Strip,
THEN they might be considered in control of their own land and borders.
BUT IF you are referring to the what some factions consider Islamic land → govern under Sharia (law) → with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
THEN no...
Israeli exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary; to the exclusion of Arab Palestinians. Israel controls the functions of the State over the territory it controls; responsible for the duties imposed upon Israel in the care of its constituents. The Arab Palestinian cannot claim territorial sovereignty over a territory that is under the control of Israel; no matter what "right" they may claim.
Palestine had international borders before the Mandate and they remained after the Mandate left.
(COMMENT)
No! The
(Government of) Palestine is that territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied;
(hereinafter described as Palestine) → within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers. It is not a product of the inhabitance → but a product of Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renouncement of the rights and titles to the Allied Powers.
So you can toss that Mandate Palestine propaganda thing out the window. There has never been a treaty with the Palestinians altering those borders. The armistice lines around Gaza and the West Bank run through Palestine. There are no borders there.
(COMMENT)
The Palestine
(in this case) = The British Administration ≠Arab Palestinian self-government. It does not represent the sovereign entity of the Arab Palestinian.
When you throw-out the Mandate for Palestine and the San Remo Convention, and the interconnecting agreements between the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is YOU that are ignoring the international laws of that day when the decisions were made and the framework was established.
NOTE: The Armistice Lines were in existence only up to the point in which the associated Treaties of Peace were enacted. See Article XII of the Armistice Argeements with Egypt and Jordan with the phrase: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Armistice or the Peace Treaty. And there is no law (then or now) that says they had to be.
BUT don't blow smoke ... by suggesting the people of the Enemy Occupied Territory → the population under the Civil Administration, → all the way up to the people who installed Arab Palestinian leaders of today that support the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters that proliferate the Arab Palestinian population have some inside track or moral high ground that casts a doubt what the intention
(by international law) of the Allied Powers was in the beginning. Without question, the intention was the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
