HELP - Israel vs Palestinians - Educate me

[Kondor3]

Whatever. Who was it that said, "to Jaw Jaw is always better than to "war war" Civilized nations always keep their options open; today's enemy becomes tomorrow's friend and vice versa. That's something Zionist Israel seems to have persistently failed to grasp.

The Palestinians have manifested far more intransigence over the past 66 years than the Israelis, and now that intransigence is coming home to roost. Welcome to your consequences.

 

[Indeependent]

Has anyone else noticed Hamas is not on the list, just the al-Qassam Brigades. Despite intense American and Zionist Israeli pressure successive British governments have refused to include Hamas' political wing on the list.

These are the same people that arrogantly took over the Holy Land from the Turks and made promises to both Jews and Arabs that they could not keep and who ultimately pulled-up stakes and left them to slaughter each other the very split second that the Mandate was over, right?

These are the same people whose Kings issued Edicts of Expulsion of all the Jews in centuries past, right?

These are the same people who ended-up obliged to kiss Arab ass in order to keep the oil flowing, once they lost their Empire, right?

These are the same people who ruled over the Middle East at-large for more than a century and who grew accustomed to dealing with treacherous Arabs, while never having the same exposure and opportunity to deal with the Jews in like fashion, right?

These are the same people whose Empire Lite (Commonwealth) and its cohesion depends in part upon remaining in the good graces of the Arabs, right?

These are the same people who fancy themselves as superior to America and who are always looking for ways to play peacemaker to subtly show-up their aggressive 'special' allies, right?

These are the same people who signed the Munich Accords in 1938 and abandoned the Czechs to a horrific fate despite their treaty obligations, right?

And, I'm sure, a half-dozen or more additional reasons for the Brits to keep the lines of communication open between themselves and as many Arab polities as is practicable.

Who knows why the Brits do this?

They don't seem overly-fond of Jews or Israel, so that comes as no particular surprise.

Whatever. Who was it that said, "to Jaw Jaw is always better than to "war war" Civilized nations always keep their options open; today's enemy becomes tomorrow's friend and vice versa. That's something Zionist Israel seems to have persistently failed to grasp.

Yes, the Galus Jews who were compliant from the Roman Conquest and on within all of those "civilized nations" did so well.

Now that Jews aren't so compliant are they truly doing so much worse?

Nope!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I was having a discussion with a co-worker about the Israel/Palestinian situation. I was expressing my view that I fully support Israel and their recent ground operations etc that they are taking to protect themselves. I was surprised to some degree with the level of disagreement that I received. I feel like it is common sense that Israel has to take these measures.

Some of the points he made included the following:

• Israel declared war on Egypt in 1966 and took lands that had not been theirs previously.
• Does this sound familiar with their more recent annexation of Gaza, West Bank, and The Golan Heights?
• Israel has repeatedly made promises to withdraw from areas and then continued to occupy and settle them.
• He said that Israel's stance reminds him of traditional view that cowboys and Europe had the right to conquer because they believed they were right.
• Putin's view of the world is similar to Israel. He is right and can do what he wants and could care less about truth or facts.

Unfortunately, I am not educated enough to respond to these points. Where can I go to get educated on Israel and the past that is a good source that I can trust?

Thanks in advance.

MD

Short of going to a place you're discussing, you only have media and government sources for your information. My advice then is always read as many disparite sources you can get a hold of then see if a coherent picture takes shape revealing the truth. If everyone agrees on specifics, then it's more likely true and accurate then if side A always disagrees with side B.

But NEVER trust ANY source. Instead, compare its' claims again its opposition. If a 3rd party or neutral source exists compare their position to A and B.

There's really no such thing as a reliable source for political information or truth. Everyone has a vested interest in perpetuating their side of things. Only by comparing multiple sides can a reliable picture be made and conclusions be drawn.

If that's more effort than you're willing to invest on an issue, ask yourself this: who do I like more? Overly simplistic at times, but in this case are Israelis the ones you'd rather vacation with, or are the Gazans? Israelis love Israel and tolerate other religions, people who support Gaza and the Palestinian cause are the same people who destroy non-Islamic religious sites. If you'd someday like to visit the streets Jesus walked instead of read about how some terrorist group laid waste to Bethlehem and Jerusalem you might consider siding with Israel.

 

[Challenger]

...Short of going to a place you're discussing, you only have media and government sources for your information. My advice then is always read as many disparite sources you can get a hold of then see if a coherent picture takes shape revealing the truth. If everyone agrees on specifics, then it's more likely true and accurate then if side A always disagrees with side B.

But NEVER trust ANY source. Instead, compare its' claims again its opposition. If a 3rd party or neutral source exists compare their position to A and B.

There's really no such thing as a reliable source for political information or truth. Everyone has a vested interest in perpetuating their side of things. Only by comparing multiple sides can a reliable picture be made and conclusions be drawn.

If that's more effort than you're willing to invest on an issue, ask yourself this: who do I like more? Overly simplistic at times, but in this case are Israelis the ones you'd rather vacation with, or are the Gazans? Israelis love Israel and tolerate other religions, people who support Gaza and the Palestinian cause are the same people who destroy non-Islamic religious sites. If you'd someday like to visit the streets Jesus walked instead of read about how some terrorist group laid waste to Bethlehem and Jerusalem you might consider siding with Israel.

Apart from your last paragraph, which fundamentaly contradicts everything you said prior, I agree with you completely. mdalby, this is the best advice you can follow.

 

[Challenger]

Whatever. Who was it that said, "to Jaw Jaw is always better than to "war war" Civilized nations always keep their options open; today's enemy becomes tomorrow's friend and vice versa. That's something Zionist Israel seems to have persistently failed to grasp.

Yes, the Galus Jews who were compliant from the Roman Conquest and on within all of those "civilized nations" did so well.

Now that Jews aren't so compliant are they truly doing so much worse?

Nope!

You are aware, are you not, that there that roughly 60% of the world's Jewish population lives anywhere but Zionist Israel, more if you count those who have completely assimilated into their various national cultures. Even amongst those that do live in Zionist Israel increasing numbers are either emigrating back to their native countries or obtaining dual nationality (in the case of Sephardic Spanish descendants now that Spain has officially lifted the 1492 ban).

 

[Delta4Embassy]

...Short of going to a place you're discussing, you only have media and government sources for your information. My advice then is always read as many disparite sources you can get a hold of then see if a coherent picture takes shape revealing the truth. If everyone agrees on specifics, then it's more likely true and accurate then if side A always disagrees with side B.

But NEVER trust ANY source. Instead, compare its' claims again its opposition. If a 3rd party or neutral source exists compare their position to A and B.

There's really no such thing as a reliable source for political information or truth. Everyone has a vested interest in perpetuating their side of things. Only by comparing multiple sides can a reliable picture be made and conclusions be drawn.

If that's more effort than you're willing to invest on an issue, ask yourself this: who do I like more? Overly simplistic at times, but in this case are Israelis the ones you'd rather vacation with, or are the Gazans? Israelis love Israel and tolerate other religions, people who support Gaza and the Palestinian cause are the same people who destroy non-Islamic religious sites. If you'd someday like to visit the streets Jesus walked instead of read about how some terrorist group laid waste to Bethlehem and Jerusalem you might consider siding with Israel.

Apart from your last paragraph, which fundamentaly contradicts everything you said prior, I agree with you completely. mdalby, this is the best advice you can follow.

Was merely recognizing most people don't analyze information as they should. They rely on which ever side they like best.

 

[Ronin]

A child could understand this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SS93A6GNws

Perspectives vary. Its obvious who the cartoonist wants the biggest kid to represent. Who are the teachers?

A child could understand this too. Sad thing is its probably their future.

 

[Indeependent]

Whatever. Who was it that said, "to Jaw Jaw is always better than to "war war" Civilized nations always keep their options open; today's enemy becomes tomorrow's friend and vice versa. That's something Zionist Israel seems to have persistently failed to grasp.

Yes, the Galus Jews who were compliant from the Roman Conquest and on within all of those "civilized nations" did so well.

Now that Jews aren't so compliant are they truly doing so much worse?

Nope!

You are aware, are you not, that there that roughly 60% of the world's Jewish population lives anywhere but Zionist Israel, more if you count those who have completely assimilated into their various national cultures. Even amongst those that do live in Zionist Israel increasing numbers are either emigrating back to their native countries or obtaining dual nationality (in the case of Sephardic Spanish descendants now that Spain has officially lifted the 1492 ban).

I am aware that almost 60% of Jews reside full-time outside of Israel.
There are thousands of wealthy Jews around the world who own houses in Israel but usually only go for the holidays.
I am not aware of Israelis moving in droves to anywhere but the US; why would they move anywhere else?
I am also fully aware that more than 90% of Jews moving to Israel are young Orthodox couples who breed like rabbits.
Most Sabra Sephardic Jews have dual citizenship for business purposes.
What!? Jews in business!? Who would have figured!?

Population wise, the Left in Israel is diminishing and the Right is growing.

 

[RoccoR]

[MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION], et al,

You need to read the bold print again.

Interesting how you call the truth a 'load of crap'.

God knows that's the truth.

You tell them that Palestine never existed as a State.

You have vast and overwhelming documentary proof of that state of affairs.

And still they call it a load of crap.

Well... Paleestinians are not known for their strong grasp of Reality.

That does not matter. People in non self governing territories have rights also.

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Whether Palestine is a state or not is subject to political opinion, but at the end of the day it is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

• "in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or
• all other territories which have not yet attained independence"

What we call the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt):

Have not been in "trust" since 1948 and the UN Palestinian Commission retired (sine die).

• The West Bank was,
  • Occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1950
  • Sovereign Jordanian Territory from 1950 to 1967
  • Occupied Jordanian Territory from 1967 to 1988
  • Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israel from 1988, when it declared independence, to present.
• The Gaza Strip was,
  • Occupied by Egypt from 1948 to 1967
  • Occupied Egyptian Territory from 1967 to 1979, with the Peace Treaty
  • Occupied PLO territory by Israel from 1979 to 1988,
  • Occupied Palestinian territory from 1988 when it declared independence, to present.

Your application of the Declaration on Decolonization [UN GA/RES/1514 (XV)] is not applicable. With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip, from 1979 to 1988, the oPt was not a territory that fit the criteria. It was either under an Occupation Government, sovereign, or independent.

You should also remember, that the League of Arab States declared the PLO as the sole representative of the Arab Palestinian people in 1974.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Humanity]

I was having a discussion with a co-worker about the Israel/Palestinian situation. I was expressing my view that I fully support Israel and their recent ground operations etc that they are taking to protect themselves. I was surprised to some degree with the level of disagreement that I received. I feel like it is common sense that Israel has to take these measures.

Some of the points he made included the following:

• Israel declared war on Egypt in 1966 and took lands that had not been theirs previously.
• Does this sound familiar with their more recent annexation of Gaza, West Bank, and The Golan Heights?
• Israel has repeatedly made promises to withdraw from areas and then continued to occupy and settle them.
• He said that Israel's stance reminds him of traditional view that cowboys and Europe had the right to conquer because they believed they were right.
• Putin's view of the world is similar to Israel. He is right and can do what he wants and could care less about truth or facts.

Unfortunately, I am not educated enough to respond to these points. Where can I go to get educated on Israel and the past that is a good source that I can trust?

Thanks in advance.

MD

Egypt along with the rest of the arab league declared war on Israel in 1948 and little Israel beat the crap out of them. Then in 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan declared war on Israel again only Israel pre empted the invasion and attacked Egypt first and won that war as well. Under the Geneva conventions Israel occupied the Sinai as a defensive move and held it until they negotiated a peace and mutual borders in 1979 and the occupied land was returned to Egyptian control

At no time has Israel instigated a war or stolen land that was not theirs, but they have occupied land for defence. And they have also returned the land once a peace treaty has been signed

Israel is not in the business of conquest, but they are prepared to defend themselves from attack.

Dressing up invasion and occupation in the name of "defence" is utter bullshit...

Strategically there is NO benefit in taking land to defend yourself... It is pure expansionism...

Israel HAS taken land that is not theirs... Occupied Territories! Oh and please don't tell me THAT is for defence also...

I think the original poster needs to go elsewhere for the truth because all he will get here is Zionist BS and abuse!

 

[Kondor3]

...Dressing up invasion and occupation in the name of "defence" is utter bullshit...

As with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in-between. It all depends upon the circumstances.

...Strategically there is NO benefit in taking land to defend yourself...

Incorrect. The Golan Heights is a classic example of the benefits of doing just that.

...It is pure expansionism...

It certainly CAN be, and oftentimes is.

...Israel HAS taken land that is not theirs... Occupied Territories! Oh and please don't tell me THAT is for defence also..

All part of the Reconquista.

This is where that is going...

The Palestinians are simply in the way.

Frankly, I doubt the Israelis want any land beyond those limits, but they have not yet completed the re-taking of their ancient spiritual homeland, so, within those outer boundaries, they continue to grab land, one tiny little slice at a time, until the job is done.

...I think the original poster needs to go elsewhere for the truth because all he will get here is Zionist BS and abuse!

The 'OP' was a pathetically transparent medium for a little anti-Israeli shit-stirring, and the pro-Israeli side of the aisle is simply countering, as needed.

 

[Humanity]

Intereseting terminology...

"The Palestinians are simply in the way."

And you bleat on about Israel not being recognised by the Arab world...

Also...

"re-taking of their ancient spiritual homeland"...

Better watch out for the million and one other ancient 'claimants' then who are going to come along to "re-take' THEIR "homeland"...

And in this particular discussion... Golan Heights has no bearing... Captured from Syria, illegally occupied and considered in international law as sovereign Syrian territory...

 

[Daniyel]

Intereseting terminology...

"The Palestinians are simply in the way."

And you bleat on about Israel not being recognised by the Arab world...

Also...

"re-taking of their ancient spiritual homeland"...

Better watch out for the million and one other ancient 'claimants' then who are going to come along to "re-take' THEIR "homeland"...

And in this particular discussion... Golan Heights has no bearing... Captured from Syria, illegally occupied and considered in international law as sovereign Syrian territory...

Without the Golan Heights Hizbullah/ISIS were already launching missiles.
And its not Palestinian homeland, you can mumble about it all day, it doesn't change the fact 7 million Israelis homeland is HERE and we are not going anywhere, so you can complain about "Palestinian Homeland" but don't forget we named them Palestinians over the ancient name of Philistines, in Hebrew it comes from INVADERS.

 

[Kondor3]

Intereseting terminology...

"The Palestinians are simply in the way."

And you bleat on about Israel not being recognised by the Arab world...

Oh, nolo contendere - no contest - but that will change again, and for the better, once their Reconquista is a fait accompli.

...Also... "re-taking of their ancient spiritual homeland"... Better watch out for the million and one other ancient 'claimants' then who are going to come along to "re-take' THEIR "homeland"...

I don't know where to go with that one (several possible directions), but, in the context of Israel, that's a chance that the Israelis are apparently willing to take. Their call.

...And in this particular discussion... Golan Heights has no bearing... Captured from Syria, illegally occupied and considered in international law as sovereign Syrian territory...

Beg to differ.

Your original remark pertained to the strategic value (or lack thereof) of conquered land.

I served up an example of conquered land that yields a strategic advantage; that's all.

It's legal status is irrelevant to its acquisition by conquest nor the strategic advantage that this gives Israel on her Northeast flank.

 

[Challenger]

...Without the Golan Heights Hizbullah/ISIS were already launching missiles.

Which makes occupying the Golan redundant does it not? The real reason Zionist Isreal annexed the Golan was to sieze and control the headwaters of the Jordan.

...but don't forget we named them Palestinians over the ancient name of Philistines, in Hebrew it comes from INVADERS.

Funny that, because "Hebrew" comes from "Habiru" which translates as "rebels", "outlaws", "raiders","mercenaries", "thugs" and "vagrants" depending on which ancient peoples encountered them.

 

[Kondor3]

...Without the Golan Heights Hizbullah/ISIS were already launching missiles.

Which makes occupying the Golan redundant does it not? The real reason Zionist Isreal annexed the Golan was to sieze and control the headwaters of the Jordan...

The Golan is the high ground on the northern (northeast) border of Israel, which allows it to (literally) look down on Syria, and to have a commanding view of the entire northern Israeli border, all the way to the sea. Control the Golan, and you control the northern approaches to Israel. The perfect place for heavy armor and long-range artillery and rocketry, from which to beat-back attacks from Syria and Lebanon, now or in future. Helluva strategic advantage.

 

[P F Tinmore]

[MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION], et al,

You need to read the bold print again.

God knows that's the truth.

You tell them that Palestine never existed as a State.

You have vast and overwhelming documentary proof of that state of affairs.

And still they call it a load of crap.

Well... Paleestinians are not known for their strong grasp of Reality.

That does not matter. People in non self governing territories have rights also.

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Whether Palestine is a state or not is subject to political opinion, but at the end of the day it is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

• "in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or
• all other territories which have not yet attained independence"

What we call the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt):

Have not been in "trust" since 1948 and the UN Palestinian Commission retired (sine die).

• The West Bank was,
  • Occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1950
  • Sovereign Jordanian Territory from 1950 to 1967
  • Occupied Jordanian Territory from 1967 to 1988
  • Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israel from 1988, when it declared independence, to present.
• The Gaza Strip was,
  • Occupied by Egypt from 1948 to 1967
  • Occupied Egyptian Territory from 1967 to 1979, with the Peace Treaty
  • Occupied PLO territory by Israel from 1979 to 1988,
  • Occupied Palestinian territory from 1988 when it declared independence, to present.

Your application of the Declaration on Decolonization [UN GA/RES/1514 (XV)] is not applicable. With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip, from 1979 to 1988, the oPt was not a territory that fit the criteria. It was either under an Occupation Government, sovereign, or independent.

You should also remember, that the League of Arab States declared the PLO as the sole representative of the Arab Palestinian people in 1974.

Most Respectfully,
R

Although your post is relatively accurate, you leave out some critical information.

Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924. All of the territories separated from Turkey were called successor states.

It had international borders that were defined by post war treaties.

All of the Turkish citizens who normally lived inside those borders became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.

As a nation of people inside international borders, they had inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

The right to independence and sovereignty.​

The right to territorial integrity.​

The League of Nations placed Palestine in trust of the British under the mandate system. The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.

Everything that happened since then was a violation of international law, the LoN Covenant, and the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

 

[toastman]

[MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION], et al,

You need to read the bold print again.

That does not matter. People in non self governing territories have rights also.



Whether Palestine is a state or not is subject to political opinion, but at the end of the day it is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

• "in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or
• all other territories which have not yet attained independence"

What we call the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt):

Have not been in "trust" since 1948 and the UN Palestinian Commission retired (sine die).

• The West Bank was,
  • Occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1950
  • Sovereign Jordanian Territory from 1950 to 1967
  • Occupied Jordanian Territory from 1967 to 1988
  • Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israel from 1988, when it declared independence, to present.
• The Gaza Strip was,
  • Occupied by Egypt from 1948 to 1967
  • Occupied Egyptian Territory from 1967 to 1979, with the Peace Treaty
  • Occupied PLO territory by Israel from 1979 to 1988,
  • Occupied Palestinian territory from 1988 when it declared independence, to present.

Your application of the Declaration on Decolonization [UN GA/RES/1514 (XV)] is not applicable. With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip, from 1979 to 1988, the oPt was not a territory that fit the criteria. It was either under an Occupation Government, sovereign, or independent.

You should also remember, that the League of Arab States declared the PLO as the sole representative of the Arab Palestinian people in 1974.

Most Respectfully,
R

Although your post is relatively accurate, you leave out some critical information.

Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924. All of the territories separated from Turkey were called successor states.

It had international borders that were defined by post war treaties.

All of the Turkish citizens who normally lived inside those borders became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.

As a nation of people inside international borders, they had inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

The right to independence and sovereignty.​

The right to territorial integrity.​

The League of Nations placed Palestine in trust of the British under the mandate system. The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.

Everything that happened since then was a violation of international law, the LoN Covenant, and the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924? Interesting, considering Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne.
And Palestine does not have any internationally recognized borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

[MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION], et al,

You need to read the bold print again.


(COMMENT)

• "in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or
• all other territories which have not yet attained independence"

What we call the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt):

Have not been in "trust" since 1948 and the UN Palestinian Commission retired (sine die).

• The West Bank was,
  • Occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1950
  • Sovereign Jordanian Territory from 1950 to 1967
  • Occupied Jordanian Territory from 1967 to 1988
  • Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israel from 1988, when it declared independence, to present.
• The Gaza Strip was,
  • Occupied by Egypt from 1948 to 1967
  • Occupied Egyptian Territory from 1967 to 1979, with the Peace Treaty
  • Occupied PLO territory by Israel from 1979 to 1988,
  • Occupied Palestinian territory from 1988 when it declared independence, to present.

Your application of the Declaration on Decolonization [UN GA/RES/1514 (XV)] is not applicable. With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip, from 1979 to 1988, the oPt was not a territory that fit the criteria. It was either under an Occupation Government, sovereign, or independent.

You should also remember, that the League of Arab States declared the PLO as the sole representative of the Arab Palestinian people in 1974.

Most Respectfully,
R

Although your post is relatively accurate, you leave out some critical information.

Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924. All of the territories separated from Turkey were called successor states.

It had international borders that were defined by post war treaties.

All of the Turkish citizens who normally lived inside those borders became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.

As a nation of people inside international borders, they had inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

The right to independence and sovereignty.​

The right to territorial integrity.​

The League of Nations placed Palestine in trust of the British under the mandate system. The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.

Everything that happened since then was a violation of international law, the LoN Covenant, and the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924? Interesting, considering Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne.
And Palestine does not have any internationally recognized borders.

Neither were the other successor states. What is your point?

Palestine has international borders. Some countries recognize them and some don't. However, that is merely political opinion that has nothing to do with legalities.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You say that all the time.

Neither were the other successor states. What is your point?

Palestine has international borders. Some countries recognize them and some don't. However, that is merely political opinion that has nothing to do with legalities.

(COMMENT)

What are the "international borders" of Palestine?
Where are they derived from?

The League of Nations placed Palestine in trust of the British under the mandate system. The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.

Everything that happened since then was a violation of international law, the LoN Covenant, and the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

This is the standard Jihadist and Fedayeen claim.

Since "Everything that happened since" was approved by the same body that wrote the international laws, what law - specifically:

• What Law are you referring to?
• What violation occurred?
• Who specifically violated it?

The same international body that wrote the international laws, were responsible for the "Everything that happened since." Not that it is going to make any difference now, but the same international methodologies that created Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, was also responsible for setting the conditions that allow for the creation of Israel. The very same rights that you credit to the Palestinians, are also the rights of the Israeli:

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

Or, are you saying that the Palestinians have some superior rights?

Most Respectfully,
R