"Free Palestine

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, but there is still a gap between us pertaining to the application of these concepts as it applies to the territories to which the former Mandate applied. And --- when did the Palestinians being to assume these "rights."

Where in international law does it discuss these rights?

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

Ownership is a real estate concepts.​

So the French do not own France?

That's good to know. Who does?

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

So much smoke to dodge an issue.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.​

And the French collectively "own" that. Nobody else.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

(COMMENT)

You and I have very different ideas about what sovereignty means --- and what it is --- and how it relates to people and territorial integrity.

Sovereignty
First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Tue Jun 8, 2010

Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system.

Each component of this definition highlights an important aspect of the concept. First, a holder of sovereignty possesses authority. That is to say, the person or entity does not merely wield coercive power, defined as A's ability to cause B to do what he would otherwise not do. Authority is rather what philosopher R.P. Wolff proposed: “the right to command and correlatively the right to be obeyed” (Wolff, 1990, 20). What is most important here is the term “right,” connoting legitimacy. A holder of sovereignty derives authority from some mutually acknowledged source of legitimacy — natural law, a divine mandate, hereditary law, a constitution, even international law. In the contemporary era, some body of law is ubiquitously the source of sovereignty.

But if sovereignty is a matter of authority, it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority. Supremacy is what makes the constitution of the United States superior to the government of Pennsylvania, or any holder of sovereignty different from a police chief or corporate executive. The holder of sovereignty is superior to all authorities under its purview. Supremacy, too, is endemic to modernity. During the Middle Ages, manifold authorities held some sort of legal warrant for their authority, whether feudal, canonical, or otherwise, but very rarely did such warrant confer supremacy.

A final ingredient of sovereignty is territoriality, also a feature of political authority in modernity. Territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders. It is a powerful principle, for it defines membership in a way that may not correspond with identity. The borders of a sovereign state may not at all circumscribe a “people” or a “nation,” and may in fact encompass several of these identities, as national self-determination and irredentist movements make evident. It is rather by simple virtue of their location within geographic borders that people belong to a state and fall under the authority of its ruler. It is within a geographic territory that modern sovereigns are supremely authoritative.​

Understanding the implications that "sovereignty" emits --- is the first step in understanding the relationship between the Arab Palestinian and the territory they inhabit. Being an long term inhabitant does not imply sovereignty or even the right to sovereignty. Remembering that “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; …..”

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

NOTE: (See Specific Comments Below)

Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference; A/RES/33/24 29 NOV 78​

Reaffirms the inalienable right of all peoples under colonial rule, foreign domination and alien subjugation to self-determination, freedom and independence in conformity with General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations; A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974​

1. Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;
2. Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;
3. Calls upon all Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples under colonial and alien domination to recognize and observe that right in accordance with the relevant international instruments and the principles and spirit of the Charter;
4. Considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;
5. Condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine; A/RES/2649 30 NOV 70​

(COMMENT)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [General Assembly resolution 217 (III)] (1948)(UDHR) the standard list as you say, in which "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

HOWEVER, if you examine the 30 Articles of UDHR, you will soon discover that individually or collectively these three "standard rights" you've identified are NOT included as part of the UDHR.

Self-determination became documented in 1945 when it was included in the United Nations Charter. However the principle argument against its universal application is that it applied to existing states under the Charter and not to independent, trusts, non-self-governing entities, or other limited sovereignties. Nor would it apply to break-away peoples or national groups. However, self-determination has evolved over time from being an undefined principle to a conceptual right, after the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples A/RES/1514(XV), when the term came to denote decolonization; hence the colonization mantra by the Arab Palestinian. Still, under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) self-determination applied to territories and not to peoples. While pro-democracies champions argue that sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government from the people, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” However, that is only in the limited case of a functioning democracy or a strong stable republic.

In point of fact, other than Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, there is not one single international law that supports specifically “unilateral secessions.” The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970) and the UN Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993) are just two examples of pronouncements that endorse the right of self-determination of peoples. And the new argument arises that, such a right is not intended to authorize actions in order to dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign state (in our case: Israel). Besides, such international documents are declarations, and not treaties or conventions, what makes them non-binding to the signing states, according to the international law.

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is agreed to an extent that there are some important legal concepts and basis that back up the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, such as:

• Article 1(2), Article 2(4), and Article 55 of the UN Charter;
  • "Equal rights" and "self-determination" of peoples, are two separate concepts. It does not establish "self-determination" as a "right to the people" but a motive for action by the people.
• Article 3(b) of the African Union Charter;
  • Defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States. (Not the dismemberment or act to impair the territorial integrity or political unity of another sovereign state; it is not applicable to independent, trusts, non-self-governing entities, or other limited sovereignties.)
• Article 1 and Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention (1933).
  • This is a separate and distinct conversation pertaining to the specific application of the Convention, even if it applied to the Middle East, as to the meaning and intent.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

(COMMENT)

Who "owns the land" is irrelevant to the questions of:

• Sovereignty
• Territorial Integrity

Ownership is a matter of specific property tort law that governs the various forms of ownership and tenancy in real property and in personal property, within the common civil law system. It is not a component or determining element in the case of international territorial integrity or in the recognition of sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

Challenger, et al,

Yes --- I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The Arabs of Palestine not once participated in the active governance process of Palestine or helped to establish self-governing institutions - NOT ONCE (From 1922 to 1947)...

The Arabs of Palestine did nothing to further their support toward self-government in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not quite. Your post fails to explain the reasons the Palestinian Muslim majority rejected these attempts and also omits this section from your own source:

"71. Meanwhile the Administration was preparing for a renewed attempt to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine. Elections were held in all the municipalities following the enactment of a new Municipal Corporations Ordinance in January , 1934. At the end of 1935, the High Commissioner communicated to the Jewish and Arab leaders proposals for the creation of a Legislative Council...

72. This project was rejected as unacceptable by the Zionists. The Arabs, although critical of its details, were ready to discuss it..."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Ultimately, the Zionists were happy to accept any measure that furthered their agenda while unsurprisingly the Palestinian majority rejected such measures, and vice versa. Palestinian Muslims chose their own path to self government, the fact it did not necessarily adhere to institutions that Britain and the Western powers wanted or envisaged is irrelevant. Did they make bad decisions? With hindsight, yes they did, but at the time it was touch and go that the British would abandon Palestine in 1938-39; had they done so we might well have a peaceful and stable Palestine and a less radicalised Middle East in general. But that's just speculation.

>>“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”<<

Many arabs stayed and now live as Israelis. Most of those that left did so at arab urging. Arabs created the refugee problem rather than find a solution or relocated the refugees to land the jews of the region were forced out of.

 

[Coyote]

Who said I was ok with it?

Work on your reading skills.

Tens of thousands of your postings across multiple boards say you are o.k. with it.

Well good - then you should be able to come with links

When Muslims in Britain rape British children as a product of their supremacist mind set, you defend them while attacking anybody who objects.

Really now? That's quite an accusation. Please link to anyplace where I defended rapists or admit you are once again making shit up.

When a fat Islamist toad says she wants all Jews in one place so they can be exterminated more easily, you defend her while demanding people attack Jews, instead. Whenever ANY discussion appears that revolves around Muslim behavior, you are right there like Pavlov's pooch salivating away with your conditioned responses.

Interesting spin you put on that discussion. I defended her based on her rebuttal. Where did I "demand" people attack Jews? I didn't you lying ass. I attacked the person who was doing the interview. Does he represent all Jews? No. Is he above reproach because he's Jewish? No.

It's amusing though that you refused to condemn an Israeli MP for saying something similar. Maybe because she's "hot" I guess (according to your buddy), and not Muslim, or maybe you accept her rebuttal but won't give the Muslim student the same chance. Like a typical mysoganist, you call her a "fat toad".

A Muslim can do no wrong in your myopic little world, and every time they do, you are right there trying to change the subject to an attack on somebody else, instead.

This coming from someone who's sole purpose seems to be to villify Muslims simply because they are Muslims. Please, give it a rest. Oh, and while you're at it why don't you find some actual quotes to support your claims?

I'm pretty sure they will never appear...because they never do, do they?

Your debate style consists of little more than personal attacks, broad brushing and knee-jerk labeling. I see it every time some counters one of your claims - your style never changes.

 

[Coyote]

That doesn't jive with history.

Who's history are we talking about here, as the history of islam is steeped in mass murders, genocides and ethnic cleansing. Just look at the Cathedral of Bones in Spain built using the skeletons of the many hundreds of thousands murdered by muslims, then say that history is wrong

What "Cathederal of bones" in Spain?

Never heard of it before but it piqued my curiousity....here's what I found:

Capela de Ossos Bone Chapel Atlas Obscura

9 of the Strangest Bone Churches of Europe BootsnAll

I think he's referring to this, but of course ommitting a bit of history:
The Skull Cathedral of Otranto Where the Bones of 800 Martyrs Adorn the Walls

The Ottoman Wars were motivated by territory gains and eradicating the Christian faith while spreading the Muslim one. Sound familiar? Just 200 hundred years earlier, the Christian Crusades (1095-1291) had led to an invasion of Northern Africa, with the crusaders’ goal to claim territory and eradicate the Muslim faith while spreading the Christian one. And the saga continues…​

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

 

[Coyote]

Where does the word "resurected", even spelled correctly, you ignoramus, ever appear in the Mandate? Come on bozo, find the word in the Mandate text. The Jews came from Europe as colonists/settlers/invaders (as it turned out). That's the one fact that no one can deny. You can't get it through your thick skull that the people in Palestine in the mid 19th century, before the Europeans began their colonization, were the same people that were always in Palestine. Most had been Christian before they converted to Islam. Before becoming Christians most followed the Roman state religion (which was the wise thing to do), before that they could have been of any pre-Christian faith Jewish included. But as in most areas of the world they remained mostly the same people. The general ethnic make up of the Irish population did not change drastically when they were Christianized nor after the English/Scottish colonization/setllement.

This exert from International law should shut you up for a short time as it shows the Jews were granted the land as far back as 1922 before the major illegal immigration of the arab muslims

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.

OK, you have defined Palestine's borders.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

Read the header as that says just that

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

No mention of any arab muslim nation of Palestine anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine

Jewish National Home​

What does that mean?

Same thing as the arab national home, Syrian national home, Iraqi national home and American national home. The homeland of the people who live there. The arab muslims had been given 5 national homes taking up 99.9% of Palestine as agreed with the British prior to WW1.

Syran and Iraqi's are different peoples...actually collections of different peoples. That would be like saying we should give put Germans, Italians and British into one and call it "Eurpean national home".

 

[Challenger]

This exert from International law should shut you up for a short time as it shows the Jews were granted the land as far back as 1922 before the major illegal immigration of the arab muslims

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.

OK, you have defined Palestine's borders.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

Read the header as that says just that

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

No mention of any arab muslim nation of Palestine anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine

Jewish National Home​

What does that mean?

Same thing as the arab national home, Syrian national home, Iraqi national home and American national home. The homeland of the people who live there. The arab muslims had been given 5 national homes taking up 99.9% of Palestine as agreed with the British prior to WW1.

Syran and Iraqi's are different peoples...actually collections of different peoples. That would be like saying we should give put Germans, Italians and British into one and call it "Eurpean national home".

As if there's not enough instability in the middle East, you want a European civil war too?! I think we'll win though...join up with the italians to kick the Germans out then live off pizza and pasta served with a nice Chianti and call the place "Britaly".

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Yes --- I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The Arabs of Palestine not once participated in the active governance process of Palestine or helped to establish self-governing institutions - NOT ONCE (From 1922 to 1947)...

The Arabs of Palestine did nothing to further their support toward self-government in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not quite. Your post fails to explain the reasons the Palestinian Muslim majority rejected these attempts and also omits this section from your own source:

"71. Meanwhile the Administration was preparing for a renewed attempt to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine. Elections were held in all the municipalities following the enactment of a new Municipal Corporations Ordinance in January , 1934. At the end of 1935, the High Commissioner communicated to the Jewish and Arab leaders proposals for the creation of a Legislative Council...

72. This project was rejected as unacceptable by the Zionists. The Arabs, although critical of its details, were ready to discuss it..."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Ultimately, the Zionists were happy to accept any measure that furthered their agenda while unsurprisingly the Palestinian majority rejected such measures, and vice versa. Palestinian Muslims chose their own path to self government, the fact it did not necessarily adhere to institutions that Britain and the Western powers wanted or envisaged is irrelevant. Did they make bad decisions? With hindsight, yes they did, but at the time it was touch and go that the British would abandon Palestine in 1938-39; had they done so we might well have a peaceful and stable Palestine and a less radicalised Middle East in general. But that's just speculation.

>>“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”<<

Many arabs stayed and now live as Israelis. Most of those that left did so at arab urging. Arabs created the refugee problem rather than find a solution or relocated the refugees to land the jews of the region were forced out of.

The Mandatory failed on all counts and there is no evidence that the native Palestinian population left at Arab urging, other than the oft quoted situation at Haifa which was the exception, rather than the rule. Given the ethnic cleansing by the Zionists started before the declaration of the state of Israel, they cannot claim the Arabs created the refugee problem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, but there is still a gap between us pertaining to the application of these concepts as it applies to the territories to which the former Mandate applied. And --- when did the Palestinians being to assume these "rights."

Where in international law does it discuss these rights?

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

Ownership is a real estate concepts.​

So the French do not own France?

That's good to know. Who does?

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

So much smoke to dodge an issue.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.​

And the French collectively "own" that. Nobody else.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

(COMMENT)

You and I have very different ideas about what sovereignty means --- and what it is --- and how it relates to people and territorial integrity.

Sovereignty
First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Tue Jun 8, 2010

Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system.

Each component of this definition highlights an important aspect of the concept. First, a holder of sovereignty possesses authority. That is to say, the person or entity does not merely wield coercive power, defined as A's ability to cause B to do what he would otherwise not do. Authority is rather what philosopher R.P. Wolff proposed: “the right to command and correlatively the right to be obeyed” (Wolff, 1990, 20). What is most important here is the term “right,” connoting legitimacy. A holder of sovereignty derives authority from some mutually acknowledged source of legitimacy — natural law, a divine mandate, hereditary law, a constitution, even international law. In the contemporary era, some body of law is ubiquitously the source of sovereignty.

But if sovereignty is a matter of authority, it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority. Supremacy is what makes the constitution of the United States superior to the government of Pennsylvania, or any holder of sovereignty different from a police chief or corporate executive. The holder of sovereignty is superior to all authorities under its purview. Supremacy, too, is endemic to modernity. During the Middle Ages, manifold authorities held some sort of legal warrant for their authority, whether feudal, canonical, or otherwise, but very rarely did such warrant confer supremacy.

A final ingredient of sovereignty is territoriality, also a feature of political authority in modernity. Territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders. It is a powerful principle, for it defines membership in a way that may not correspond with identity. The borders of a sovereign state may not at all circumscribe a “people” or a “nation,” and may in fact encompass several of these identities, as national self-determination and irredentist movements make evident. It is rather by simple virtue of their location within geographic borders that people belong to a state and fall under the authority of its ruler. It is within a geographic territory that modern sovereigns are supremely authoritative.​

Understanding the implications that "sovereignty" emits --- is the first step in understanding the relationship between the Arab Palestinian and the territory they inhabit. Being an long term inhabitant does not imply sovereignty or even the right to sovereignty. Remembering that “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; …..”

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

NOTE: (See Specific Comments Below)

Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference; A/RES/33/24 29 NOV 78​

Reaffirms the inalienable right of all peoples under colonial rule, foreign domination and alien subjugation to self-determination, freedom and independence in conformity with General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations; A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974​

1. Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;
2. Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;
3. Calls upon all Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples under colonial and alien domination to recognize and observe that right in accordance with the relevant international instruments and the principles and spirit of the Charter;
4. Considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;
5. Condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine; A/RES/2649 30 NOV 70​

(COMMENT)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [General Assembly resolution 217 (III)] (1948)(UDHR) the standard list as you say, in which "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

HOWEVER, if you examine the 30 Articles of UDHR, you will soon discover that individually or collectively these three "standard rights" you've identified are NOT included as part of the UDHR.

Self-determination became documented in 1945 when it was included in the United Nations Charter. However the principle argument against its universal application is that it applied to existing states under the Charter and not to independent, trusts, non-self-governing entities, or other limited sovereignties. Nor would it apply to break-away peoples or national groups. However, self-determination has evolved over time from being an undefined principle to a conceptual right, after the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples A/RES/1514(XV), when the term came to denote decolonization; hence the colonization mantra by the Arab Palestinian. Still, under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) self-determination applied to territories and not to peoples. While pro-democracies champions argue that sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government from the people, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” However, that is only in the limited case of a functioning democracy or a strong stable republic.

In point of fact, other than Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, there is not one single international law that supports specifically “unilateral secessions.” The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970) and the UN Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993) are just two examples of pronouncements that endorse the right of self-determination of peoples. And the new argument arises that, such a right is not intended to authorize actions in order to dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign state (in our case: Israel). Besides, such international documents are declarations, and not treaties or conventions, what makes them non-binding to the signing states, according to the international law.

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is agreed to an extent that there are some important legal concepts and basis that back up the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, such as:

• Article 1(2), Article 2(4), and Article 55 of the UN Charter;
  • "Equal rights" and "self-determination" of peoples, are two separate concepts. It does not establish "self-determination" as a "right to the people" but a motive for action by the people.
• Article 3(b) of the African Union Charter;
  • Defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States. (Not the dismemberment or act to impair the territorial integrity or political unity of another sovereign state; it is not applicable to independent, trusts, non-self-governing entities, or other limited sovereignties.)
• Article 1 and Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention (1933).
  • This is a separate and distinct conversation pertaining to the specific application of the Convention, even if it applied to the Middle East, as to the meaning and intent.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

(COMMENT)

Who "owns the land" is irrelevant to the questions of:

• Sovereignty
• Territorial Integrity

Ownership is a matter of specific property tort law that governs the various forms of ownership and tenancy in real property and in personal property, within the common civil law system. It is not a component or determining element in the case of international territorial integrity or in the recognition of sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

In point of fact, other than Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, there is not one single international law that supports specifically “unilateral secessions.”​

This does not apply to the Palestinians at all. This only applies to groups of people wanting to break away from a state.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

Ownership is a real estate concepts.​

So the French do not own France?

That's good to know. Who does?

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

So much smoke to dodge an issue.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.​

And the French collectively "own" that. Nobody else.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home. This left the arab muslims and Christians with many options, from staying where they were as full citizens of the Jewish national home ( some took this option and are now living in Israel as full citizens ). They could relocate to trans Jordan and receive a small bounty to help them move and set up home, or they could relocate to any of the other nations created under the LoN Mandate system, again with a small bounty to assist in the move and to set up home. The last option was to take up arms and start a war because they followed the teachings of their religion. The last option is the one chosen by the majority of the arab muslims, and if the LoN knew then what we know now they would have torn up the various mandates and placed garrisons inside those nations to put down any terrorism and violence. Removing the Mandate principles and taking full control of the land as they could under International law at that time.

As you say the illegal arab muslim migrants do not have any rights, but the legally invited Jews do.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Yes --- I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The Arabs of Palestine not once participated in the active governance process of Palestine or helped to establish self-governing institutions - NOT ONCE (From 1922 to 1947)...

The Arabs of Palestine did nothing to further their support toward self-government in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not quite. Your post fails to explain the reasons the Palestinian Muslim majority rejected these attempts and also omits this section from your own source:

"71. Meanwhile the Administration was preparing for a renewed attempt to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine. Elections were held in all the municipalities following the enactment of a new Municipal Corporations Ordinance in January , 1934. At the end of 1935, the High Commissioner communicated to the Jewish and Arab leaders proposals for the creation of a Legislative Council...

72. This project was rejected as unacceptable by the Zionists. The Arabs, although critical of its details, were ready to discuss it..."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Ultimately, the Zionists were happy to accept any measure that furthered their agenda while unsurprisingly the Palestinian majority rejected such measures, and vice versa. Palestinian Muslims chose their own path to self government, the fact it did not necessarily adhere to institutions that Britain and the Western powers wanted or envisaged is irrelevant. Did they make bad decisions? With hindsight, yes they did, but at the time it was touch and go that the British would abandon Palestine in 1938-39; had they done so we might well have a peaceful and stable Palestine and a less radicalised Middle East in general. But that's just speculation.

>>“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”<<

Many arabs stayed and now live as Israelis. Most of those that left did so at arab urging. Arabs created the refugee problem rather than find a solution or relocated the refugees to land the jews of the region were forced out of.

The Mandatory failed on all counts and there is no evidence that the native Palestinian population left at Arab urging, other than the oft quoted situation at Haifa which was the exception, rather than the rule. Given the ethnic cleansing by the Zionists started before the declaration of the state of Israel, they cannot claim the Arabs created the refugee problem.

Nor is there any evidence that the Jews physically evicted 750,000 arab muslims, not when there are interviews with them were they state they were told to go by the arab armies

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, but there is still a gap between us pertaining to the application of these concepts as it applies to the territories to which the former Mandate applied. And --- when did the Palestinians being to assume these "rights."

Where in international law does it discuss these rights?

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

So much smoke to dodge an issue.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.​

And the French collectively "own" that. Nobody else.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

(COMMENT)

You and I have very different ideas about what sovereignty means --- and what it is --- and how it relates to people and territorial integrity.

Sovereignty
First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Tue Jun 8, 2010

Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system.

Each component of this definition highlights an important aspect of the concept. First, a holder of sovereignty possesses authority. That is to say, the person or entity does not merely wield coercive power, defined as A's ability to cause B to do what he would otherwise not do. Authority is rather what philosopher R.P. Wolff proposed: “the right to command and correlatively the right to be obeyed” (Wolff, 1990, 20). What is most important here is the term “right,” connoting legitimacy. A holder of sovereignty derives authority from some mutually acknowledged source of legitimacy — natural law, a divine mandate, hereditary law, a constitution, even international law. In the contemporary era, some body of law is ubiquitously the source of sovereignty.

But if sovereignty is a matter of authority, it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority. Supremacy is what makes the constitution of the United States superior to the government of Pennsylvania, or any holder of sovereignty different from a police chief or corporate executive. The holder of sovereignty is superior to all authorities under its purview. Supremacy, too, is endemic to modernity. During the Middle Ages, manifold authorities held some sort of legal warrant for their authority, whether feudal, canonical, or otherwise, but very rarely did such warrant confer supremacy.

A final ingredient of sovereignty is territoriality, also a feature of political authority in modernity. Territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders. It is a powerful principle, for it defines membership in a way that may not correspond with identity. The borders of a sovereign state may not at all circumscribe a “people” or a “nation,” and may in fact encompass several of these identities, as national self-determination and irredentist movements make evident. It is rather by simple virtue of their location within geographic borders that people belong to a state and fall under the authority of its ruler. It is within a geographic territory that modern sovereigns are supremely authoritative.​

Understanding the implications that "sovereignty" emits --- is the first step in understanding the relationship between the Arab Palestinian and the territory they inhabit. Being an long term inhabitant does not imply sovereignty or even the right to sovereignty. Remembering that “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; …..”

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

NOTE: (See Specific Comments Below)

Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference; A/RES/33/24 29 NOV 78​

Reaffirms the inalienable right of all peoples under colonial rule, foreign domination and alien subjugation to self-determination, freedom and independence in conformity with General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations; A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974​

1. Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;
2. Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;
3. Calls upon all Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples under colonial and alien domination to recognize and observe that right in accordance with the relevant international instruments and the principles and spirit of the Charter;
4. Considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;
5. Condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine; A/RES/2649 30 NOV 70​

(COMMENT)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [General Assembly resolution 217 (III)] (1948)(UDHR) the standard list as you say, in which "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

HOWEVER, if you examine the 30 Articles of UDHR, you will soon discover that individually or collectively these three "standard rights" you've identified are NOT included as part of the UDHR.

Self-determination became documented in 1945 when it was included in the United Nations Charter. However the principle argument against its universal application is that it applied to existing states under the Charter and not to independent, trusts, non-self-governing entities, or other limited sovereignties. Nor would it apply to break-away peoples or national groups. However, self-determination has evolved over time from being an undefined principle to a conceptual right, after the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples A/RES/1514(XV), when the term came to denote decolonization; hence the colonization mantra by the Arab Palestinian. Still, under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) self-determination applied to territories and not to peoples. While pro-democracies champions argue that sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government from the people, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” However, that is only in the limited case of a functioning democracy or a strong stable republic.

In point of fact, other than Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, there is not one single international law that supports specifically “unilateral secessions.” The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970) and the UN Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993) are just two examples of pronouncements that endorse the right of self-determination of peoples. And the new argument arises that, such a right is not intended to authorize actions in order to dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign state (in our case: Israel). Besides, such international documents are declarations, and not treaties or conventions, what makes them non-binding to the signing states, according to the international law.

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is agreed to an extent that there are some important legal concepts and basis that back up the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, such as:

• Article 1(2), Article 2(4), and Article 55 of the UN Charter;
  • "Equal rights" and "self-determination" of peoples, are two separate concepts. It does not establish "self-determination" as a "right to the people" but a motive for action by the people.
• Article 3(b) of the African Union Charter;
  • Defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States. (Not the dismemberment or act to impair the territorial integrity or political unity of another sovereign state; it is not applicable to independent, trusts, non-self-governing entities, or other limited sovereignties.)
• Article 1 and Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention (1933).
  • This is a separate and distinct conversation pertaining to the specific application of the Convention, even if it applied to the Middle East, as to the meaning and intent.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

(COMMENT)

Who "owns the land" is irrelevant to the questions of:

• Sovereignty
• Territorial Integrity

Ownership is a matter of specific property tort law that governs the various forms of ownership and tenancy in real property and in personal property, within the common civil law system. It is not a component or determining element in the case of international territorial integrity or in the recognition of sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

In point of fact, other than Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, there is not one single international law that supports specifically “unilateral secessions.”​

This does not apply to the Palestinians at all. This only applies to groups of people wanting to break away from a state.

Which did not apply at the time because the UN was not formed at that time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

Ownership is a real estate concepts.​

So the French do not own France?

That's good to know. Who does?

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

So much smoke to dodge an issue.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.​

And the French collectively "own" that. Nobody else.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home. This left the arab muslims and Christians with many options, from staying where they were as full citizens of the Jewish national home ( some took this option and are now living in Israel as full citizens ). They could relocate to trans Jordan and receive a small bounty to help them move and set up home, or they could relocate to any of the other nations created under the LoN Mandate system, again with a small bounty to assist in the move and to set up home. The last option was to take up arms and start a war because they followed the teachings of their religion. The last option is the one chosen by the majority of the arab muslims, and if the LoN knew then what we know now they would have torn up the various mandates and placed garrisons inside those nations to put down any terrorism and violence. Removing the Mandate principles and taking full control of the land as they could under International law at that time.

As you say the illegal arab muslim migrants do not have any rights, but the legally invited Jews do.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home.​

How about providing a link to that.

 

[aris2chat]

This exert from International law should shut you up for a short time as it shows the Jews were granted the land as far back as 1922 before the major illegal immigration of the arab muslims

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.

OK, you have defined Palestine's borders.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

Read the header as that says just that

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

No mention of any arab muslim nation of Palestine anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine

Jewish National Home​

What does that mean?

Same thing as the arab national home, Syrian national home, Iraqi national home and American national home. The homeland of the people who live there. The arab muslims had been given 5 national homes taking up 99.9% of Palestine as agreed with the British prior to WW1.

Syran and Iraqi's are different peoples...actually collections of different peoples. That would be like saying we should give put Germans, Italians and British into one and call it "Eurpean national home".

both were ruled by king faisal

 

[Phoenall]

This exert from International law should shut you up for a short time as it shows the Jews were granted the land as far back as 1922 before the major illegal immigration of the arab muslims

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.

OK, you have defined Palestine's borders.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

Read the header as that says just that

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

No mention of any arab muslim nation of Palestine anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine

Jewish National Home​

What does that mean?

Same thing as the arab national home, Syrian national home, Iraqi national home and American national home. The homeland of the people who live there. The arab muslims had been given 5 national homes taking up 99.9% of Palestine as agreed with the British prior to WW1.

Drivel. "National homes" are not "Nation states".

LINK ? ? ?

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Yes --- I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The Arabs of Palestine not once participated in the active governance process of Palestine or helped to establish self-governing institutions - NOT ONCE (From 1922 to 1947)...

The Arabs of Palestine did nothing to further their support toward self-government in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not quite. Your post fails to explain the reasons the Palestinian Muslim majority rejected these attempts and also omits this section from your own source:

"71. Meanwhile the Administration was preparing for a renewed attempt to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine. Elections were held in all the municipalities following the enactment of a new Municipal Corporations Ordinance in January , 1934. At the end of 1935, the High Commissioner communicated to the Jewish and Arab leaders proposals for the creation of a Legislative Council...

72. This project was rejected as unacceptable by the Zionists. The Arabs, although critical of its details, were ready to discuss it..."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Ultimately, the Zionists were happy to accept any measure that furthered their agenda while unsurprisingly the Palestinian majority rejected such measures, and vice versa. Palestinian Muslims chose their own path to self government, the fact it did not necessarily adhere to institutions that Britain and the Western powers wanted or envisaged is irrelevant. Did they make bad decisions? With hindsight, yes they did, but at the time it was touch and go that the British would abandon Palestine in 1938-39; had they done so we might well have a peaceful and stable Palestine and a less radicalised Middle East in general. But that's just speculation.

>>“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”<<

Many arabs stayed and now live as Israelis. Most of those that left did so at arab urging. Arabs created the refugee problem rather than find a solution or relocated the refugees to land the jews of the region were forced out of.

The Mandatory failed on all counts and there is no evidence that the native Palestinian population left at Arab urging, other than the oft quoted situation at Haifa which was the exception, rather than the rule. Given the ethnic cleansing by the Zionists started before the declaration of the state of Israel, they cannot claim the Arabs created the refugee problem.

Nor is there any evidence that the Jews physically evicted 750,000 arab muslims, not when there are interviews with them were they state they were told to go by the arab armies

Oh, there's plenty of evidence for the Zionist colonial militias evicting the native population of Palestine, best catalogued in this book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Amazon.co.uk Ilan Pappe 9781851685554 Books but that's one of many.

 

[Phoenall]

I have read many works by well renowned academics...

Name them and their books that you've allegedly read.

Define Zionist and Zionism in your own words first........................

I'll take that as an admission you haven't read any "works by well renowned academics" and are just making things up as usual.

That would be you as that is your typical neo Marxist trait. Unlike you I don't link to a commercial site selling books and claim it proves my claim.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

So much smoke to dodge an issue.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.​

And the French collectively "own" that. Nobody else.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home. This left the arab muslims and Christians with many options, from staying where they were as full citizens of the Jewish national home ( some took this option and are now living in Israel as full citizens ). They could relocate to trans Jordan and receive a small bounty to help them move and set up home, or they could relocate to any of the other nations created under the LoN Mandate system, again with a small bounty to assist in the move and to set up home. The last option was to take up arms and start a war because they followed the teachings of their religion. The last option is the one chosen by the majority of the arab muslims, and if the LoN knew then what we know now they would have torn up the various mandates and placed garrisons inside those nations to put down any terrorism and violence. Removing the Mandate principles and taking full control of the land as they could under International law at that time.

As you say the illegal arab muslim migrants do not have any rights, but the legally invited Jews do.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home.​

How about providing a link to that.

Mandate for Palestine of course, or don't you know how to find the evidence yourself.

 

[Phoenall]

Who's history are we talking about here, as the history of islam is steeped in mass murders, genocides and ethnic cleansing. Just look at the Cathedral of Bones in Spain built using the skeletons of the many hundreds of thousands murdered by muslims, then say that history is wrong

What "Cathederal of bones" in Spain?

Never heard of it before but it piqued my curiousity....here's what I found:

Capela de Ossos Bone Chapel Atlas Obscura

9 of the Strangest Bone Churches of Europe BootsnAll

I think he's referring to this, but of course ommitting a bit of history:
The Skull Cathedral of Otranto Where the Bones of 800 Martyrs Adorn the Walls

The Ottoman Wars were motivated by territory gains and eradicating the Christian faith while spreading the Muslim one. Sound familiar? Just 200 hundred years earlier, the Christian Crusades (1095-1291) had led to an invasion of Northern Africa, with the crusaders’ goal to claim territory and eradicate the Muslim faith while spreading the Christian one. And the saga continues…​

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

Yes, the Roman Catholic Spanish are well known for placing the bones of Jewish people in their churches, although I suppose they could have been left-overs from the Inquisition. oh, BTW, we've moved well beyond this little "diversion", but it's only polite to let the slow catch up.

So you believe that Jewish bones have Jew stamped on them do you. The mass murders of Jews and Christians were thrown into mass graves and the bodies jumbled up. So how did the people coming after say that this is the body of a Jew throw it back in the hole, that is the body of a Christian keep it.

Your lack of intelligence and Anti Semitism shines out like a beacon.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Yes --- I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The Arabs of Palestine not once participated in the active governance process of Palestine or helped to establish self-governing institutions - NOT ONCE (From 1922 to 1947)...

The Arabs of Palestine did nothing to further their support toward self-government in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not quite. Your post fails to explain the reasons the Palestinian Muslim majority rejected these attempts and also omits this section from your own source:

"71. Meanwhile the Administration was preparing for a renewed attempt to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine. Elections were held in all the municipalities following the enactment of a new Municipal Corporations Ordinance in January , 1934. At the end of 1935, the High Commissioner communicated to the Jewish and Arab leaders proposals for the creation of a Legislative Council...

72. This project was rejected as unacceptable by the Zionists. The Arabs, although critical of its details, were ready to discuss it..."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Ultimately, the Zionists were happy to accept any measure that furthered their agenda while unsurprisingly the Palestinian majority rejected such measures, and vice versa. Palestinian Muslims chose their own path to self government, the fact it did not necessarily adhere to institutions that Britain and the Western powers wanted or envisaged is irrelevant. Did they make bad decisions? With hindsight, yes they did, but at the time it was touch and go that the British would abandon Palestine in 1938-39; had they done so we might well have a peaceful and stable Palestine and a less radicalised Middle East in general. But that's just speculation.

>>“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”<<

Many arabs stayed and now live as Israelis. Most of those that left did so at arab urging. Arabs created the refugee problem rather than find a solution or relocated the refugees to land the jews of the region were forced out of.

The Mandatory failed on all counts and there is no evidence that the native Palestinian population left at Arab urging, other than the oft quoted situation at Haifa which was the exception, rather than the rule. Given the ethnic cleansing by the Zionists started before the declaration of the state of Israel, they cannot claim the Arabs created the refugee problem.

Nor is there any evidence that the Jews physically evicted 750,000 arab muslims, not when there are interviews with them were they state they were told to go by the arab armies

Oh, there's plenty of evidence for the Zionist colonial militias evicting the native population of Palestine, best catalogued in this book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Amazon.co.uk Ilan Pappe 9781851685554 Books but that's one of many.

Is that the best you can do some left wing hypocrite that hates his own people. How about first hand testimony from an arab muslim himself ?

Refugee - Arab states told Arabs to leave Israel in 1948 war - YouTube

 

[Phoenall]

Who's history are we talking about here, as the history of islam is steeped in mass murders, genocides and ethnic cleansing. Just look at the Cathedral of Bones in Spain built using the skeletons of the many hundreds of thousands murdered by muslims, then say that history is wrong

What "Cathederal of bones" in Spain?

Never heard of it before but it piqued my curiousity....here's what I found:

Capela de Ossos Bone Chapel Atlas Obscura

9 of the Strangest Bone Churches of Europe BootsnAll

I think he's referring to this, but of course ommitting a bit of history:
The Skull Cathedral of Otranto Where the Bones of 800 Martyrs Adorn the Walls

The Ottoman Wars were motivated by territory gains and eradicating the Christian faith while spreading the Muslim one. Sound familiar? Just 200 hundred years earlier, the Christian Crusades (1095-1291) had led to an invasion of Northern Africa, with the crusaders’ goal to claim territory and eradicate the Muslim faith while spreading the Christian one. And the saga continues…​

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.