I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your citation actually works against you. For it is out of context.

Indeed.

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(OBSERVATION)

The "Wiki" entry you cite --- was cherry picked. You left out the part that says: "In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[42]"

Reference: File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment

Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:

• Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650–652

Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.

I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."

The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.​

(COMMENT)

The attempt to use the ICJ Judgment #5 as a means to justify the existence of a state or nation called Palestine, in the context that that such a nation or state was in the hands of the indigenous population and had some measure of legality is ridiculous. Judgment #5 say that the successor government was the UK, and was obligated to make good the civil claims incurred by the Ottoman Empire for that territory.

We've discussed this before; several times.

I suggest you read a more objective view (mind you it is also an Arab view) from PediaView.com Open Source Encyclopedia - State of Palestine, which states in part:

Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين* Dawlat Filasṭīn), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that declared independence on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers. In 2012, it was granted observer status by the United Nations (UN).[15] It claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories,[16] and has designated Jerusalem as its capital.[ii][3][4] The areas claimed for the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, with the Palestinian Authority exercising socio-political administration since 1993 in limited areas.[7]

The 1974 Arab League summit designated the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" and reaffirmed "their right to establish an independent state of urgency."[17] The PLO held observer status at the United Nations as a "non-state entity" from 22 November 1974,[18][19] which entitled it to speak in the UN General Assembly but not to vote. After the Declaration of Independence, the UN General Assembly officially "acknowledged" the proclamation and voted to use the designation "Palestine" instead of "Palestine Liberation Organization" when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer.[20][21] In spite of this decision, the PLO did not participate at the UN in its capacity of the State of Palestine's government.[22]

But then there is a further explanation:

A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[179] The Court said that specific guarantees regarding freedom of movement and access to the Holy Sites contained in the Treaty of Berlin (1878) had been preserved under the terms of the Palestine Mandate and a chapter of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.[180] In a separate opinion, Judge Higgins argued that since United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 to Resolution 1515 in 2003, the "key underlying requirements" have been that "Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State", with resolution 1515 endorsing the Road map for peace proposed by the Middle East Quartet, as a means to achieve these obligations through negotiation.[181]

• Note: UN Map #3243 is directly attached to the UNSC Resolution 242.

Simply put, the Palestinian history, as a State, opens with its Declaration of Independence in November 1988, and not before; especially when it comes time to pay the bills, look and see who does it. In the Judgment #5, the Government of Palestine was the UK and they were obligated.

Most Respectfully,
R

In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.

I think you are mistaken.

Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your citation actually works against you. For it is out of context.

Indeed.

(OBSERVATION)

The "Wiki" entry you cite --- was cherry picked. You left out the part that says: "In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[42]"

Reference: File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment

Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:

• Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650–652

Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.

I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."

The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.​

(COMMENT)

The attempt to use the ICJ Judgment #5 as a means to justify the existence of a state or nation called Palestine, in the context that that such a nation or state was in the hands of the indigenous population and had some measure of legality is ridiculous. Judgment #5 say that the successor government was the UK, and was obligated to make good the civil claims incurred by the Ottoman Empire for that territory.

We've discussed this before; several times.

I suggest you read a more objective view (mind you it is also an Arab view) from PediaView.com Open Source Encyclopedia - State of Palestine, which states in part:



But then there is a further explanation:

• Note: UN Map #3243 is directly attached to the UNSC Resolution 242.

Simply put, the Palestinian history, as a State, opens with its Declaration of Independence in November 1988, and not before; especially when it comes time to pay the bills, look and see who does it. In the Judgment #5, the Government of Palestine was the UK and they were obligated.

Most Respectfully,
R

In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.

I think you are mistaken.

Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.

Did you read that somewhere or did you make that up ?

 

[toastman]

pbel, et al,

Just a minor "timeline" reminder.

Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...

Nice cup of English Tea...

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian Black Hand was founded in 1930 and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.

The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine between 1931 and 1948.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.
Most Respectfully,
R

If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...

Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers was a given and justified fiat.

And if Arabs werent attacking and killing Jews, Irgun would not have come into existence.
Am I doing it right Pbel?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe that much of this is exaggerated, in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.

And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

The infiltration of External Arab Forces into the Region by the Arab League, many months before the war, had a consequence.

The external interference was on the part of the Arab League. There were no external forces infiltrating into the region or rushing to support the Jewish defense of the Homeland after the 15 May Declaration of Independence.


(COMMENT)

The right to sovereignty and the right of self-determination are two different things; hence two different word description. There was a Recommendation on the table for a Jewish State and an Arab State. The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), rather than move forward and become involved in the Implementation Process, exercised their right of self-determination by rejecting the plan for a sovereign Arab State.


(COMMENT)

I did not say that. In fact I argue for it. Territory integrity came into play when the Jewish Agency declared independence in MAY '48, and the the phony Arab Higher Committee tried to declare independence over the same territory four months later in September '48.


(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians are not defending themselves. They are, by their own admission, conducting aggressive operations against Israel to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State which the UN authorized, help establish, and implemented under resolution. The HoAP segment of the Palestinians, don't recognize the UN Resolution of 1947, or anything derived from it. They don't recognize the State of Israel, or their legitimacy. The Jihadist and Fedayeen have sworn to participate and conduct hostile operations to liberate all of the former mandate. This is not self defense but political-military offensive operations by paramilitary and terrorist forces.

This is not self defense. The current occupation is a quarantine and containment effort to protect the people of the State of Israel from the demonstrated threat of genocide by the HoAP, through conventional warfare, criminal activity, terrorist operations and suicide attacks. The HoAP are currently allowing terrorist training to be conducted in the open, in camps that are inside the 1988 State of Palestine.

Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.

(COMMENT)

Like I said, there was no reasonable expectation that you would.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy deflection, Batman!

How about making a serious attempt at addressing my post.

How can you say that?!!?!
Uhhh he addressed every comment on that post.
It seems like this is your response when you have no rebuttal. Very immature

 

[toastman]

Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...

Nice cup of English Tea...

You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline

There were atrocities on both sides, by the invaders and defenders. Not surprising.

The local Jews were invaders? Interesting concept

 

[P F Tinmore]

You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline

There were atrocities on both sides, by the invaders and defenders. Not surprising.

The local Jews were invaders? Interesting concept

No, the local Jews were opposed to a Jewish state.

The Jews imported by the Zionists were the invaders.

 

[toastman]

An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.

 

[P F Tinmore]

An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.

The people down the street can invite someone to your house?

Interesting concept.

 

[toastman]

An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.

The people down the street can invite someone to your house?

Interesting concept.

Who are the people down the street

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Just a minor "timeline" reminder.


(COMMENT)

The Palestinian Black Hand was founded in 1930 and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.

The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine between 1931 and 1948.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.
Most Respectfully,
R

If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...

Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers was a given and justified fiat.

And if Arabs werent attacking and killing Jews, Irgun would not have come into existence.
Am I doing it right Pbel?

The Irgum terrorized the British to force them to leave so they could turn on the Arabs.

 

[toastman]

If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...

Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers was a given and justified fiat.

And if Arabs werent attacking and killing Jews, Irgun would not have come into existence.
Am I doing it right Pbel?

The Irgum terrorized the British to force them to leave so they could turn on the Arabs.

Riiiiiggghtttttt

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I unserstand that you have to make this assumption in order to substantiate your claim.

In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.

I think you are mistaken.

Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.

(COMMENT)

First, I never claimed that the Palestine was "part of Britain." My claim is that it exercised government power over Palestine, both Executive and Legislative.

The Palestinian people, under whatever cover or title, never exercised any autonomy or control over any portion of the Mandate of Palestine, less that designated as Trans-Jordan. The Mandatory would maintain such authority and control over the territory until such time as the indigenous population were believed by League of Nation members to be ready for independence and self-government.

Finally, in 1948, the Mandatory Government of Palestine (UK) transfers to powers to their successor.

In the transfer of successor government authority, you will notice that the UK states:

"Palestine is today (27 Feb 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

The Mandatory exercised inherent governmental authority.

You may try and re-interpret it any way you want, but in the end, there was no State of Palestine until November 1988 recognized by anyone anywhere except in a few radical minds of some very HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I unserstand that you have to make this assumption in order to substantiate your claim.

In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.

I think you are mistaken.

Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.

(COMMENT)

First, I never claimed that the Palestine was "part of Britain." My claim is that it exercised government power over Palestine, both Executive and Legislative.

The Palestinian people, under whatever cover or title, never exercised any autonomy or control over any portion of the Mandate of Palestine, less that designated as Trans-Jordan. The Mandatory would maintain such authority and control over the territory until such time as the indigenous population were believed by League of Nation members to be ready for independence and self-government.

Finally, in 1948, the Mandatory Government of Palestine (UK) transfers to powers to their successor.

In the transfer of successor government authority, you will notice that the UK states:

"Palestine is today (27 Feb 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

The Mandatory exercised inherent governmental authority.

You may try and re-interpret it any way you want, but in the end, there was no State of Palestine until November 1988 recognized by anyone anywhere except in a few radical minds of some very HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

[/QUOTE]

So, if Britain was not the successor state, who was?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And herein rests the BIG misunderstanding.

An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.

The people down the street can invite someone to your house?

Interesting concept.

(COMMENT)

It was not "your house!" That is to say, that the Mandate of Palestine was never under the sovereign authority of the indigenous population (until 1988). The invitation was extended to the Jewish People by the Allied Powers through the Mandatory, having full authority (Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Powers) under the Mandate.

It was not the people down the street, it was the people that owned the street (using your analogy).

The invaders (external interference) was anyone entering the Mandate Territory with the intent to obstruct the implementation of the Mandate (one mission of which was to establish a Jewish National Home). It was not a decision left to the Hostile Arab Population; judged unready for independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't try and twist my words.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I unserstand that you have to make this assumption in order to substantiate your claim.

I think you are mistaken.

Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.

(COMMENT)

First, I never claimed that the Palestine was "part of Britain." My claim is that it exercised government power over Palestine, both Executive and Legislative.

The Palestinian people, under whatever cover or title, never exercised any autonomy or control over any portion of the Mandate of Palestine, less that designated as Trans-Jordan. The Mandatory would maintain such authority and control over the territory until such time as the indigenous population were believed by League of Nation members to be ready for independence and self-government.

Finally, in 1948, the Mandatory Government of Palestine (UK) transfers to powers to their successor.

In the transfer of successor government authority, you will notice that the UK states:

"Palestine is today (27 Feb 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

The Mandatory exercised inherent governmental authority.

You may try and re-interpret it any way you want, but in the end, there was no State of Palestine until November 1988 recognized by anyone anywhere except in a few radical minds of some very HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, if Britain was not the successor state, who was?

(COMMENT)

The UK, as the Mandatory exercised all governmental authority over the territory under Mandate (the de facto government). On termination of the Mandate, the UNPC became the successor government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And herein rests the BIG misunderstanding.

An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.

The people down the street can invite someone to your house?

Interesting concept.

(COMMENT)

It was not "your house!" That is to say, that the Mandate of Palestine was never under the sovereign authority of the indigenous population (until 1988). The invitation was extended to the Jewish People by the Allied Powers through the Mandatory, having full authority (Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Powers) under the Mandate.

It was not the people down the street, it was the people that owned the street (using your analogy).

The invaders (external interference) was anyone entering the Mandate Territory with the intent to obstruct the implementation of the Mandate (one mission of which was to establish a Jewish National Home). It was not a decision left to the Hostile Arab Population; judged unready for independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

A mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the people (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone.

Any variation from that was a violation of the League of Nations Covenant and the inherent rights of the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't try and twist my words.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I unserstand that you have to make this assumption in order to substantiate your claim.


(COMMENT)

First, I never claimed that the Palestine was "part of Britain." My claim is that it exercised government power over Palestine, both Executive and Legislative.

The Palestinian people, under whatever cover or title, never exercised any autonomy or control over any portion of the Mandate of Palestine, less that designated as Trans-Jordan. The Mandatory would maintain such authority and control over the territory until such time as the indigenous population were believed by League of Nation members to be ready for independence and self-government.

Finally, in 1948, the Mandatory Government of Palestine (UK) transfers to powers to their successor.

In the transfer of successor government authority, you will notice that the UK states:



The Mandatory exercised inherent governmental authority.

You may try and re-interpret it any way you want, but in the end, there was no State of Palestine until November 1988 recognized by anyone anywhere except in a few radical minds of some very HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, if Britain was not the successor state, who was?

(COMMENT)

The UK, as the Mandatory exercised all governmental authority over the territory under Mandate (the de facto government). On termination of the Mandate, the UNPC became the successor government.

Most Respectfully,
R

So then, Israel took Palestine from the UN by force?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? I think not.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't try and twist my words.

So, if Britain was not the successor state, who was?

(COMMENT)

The UK, as the Mandatory exercised all governmental authority over the territory under Mandate (the de facto government). On termination of the Mandate, the UNPC became the successor government.

Most Respectfully,
R

So then, Israel took Palestine from the UN by force?

(COMMENT)

The UNPC Implemented the November 1947 Resolution and declared independence with there full cooperation, at the completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

No Force required. Cooperation and coordination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? I think not.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't try and twist my words.


(COMMENT)

The UK, as the Mandatory exercised all governmental authority over the territory under Mandate (the de facto government). On termination of the Mandate, the UNPC became the successor government.

Most Respectfully,
R

So then, Israel took Palestine from the UN by force?

(COMMENT)

The UNPC Implemented the November 1947 Resolution and declared independence with there full cooperation, at the completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

No Force required. Cooperation and coordination.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UNPC was to define the borders between the two states. When did that happen?

When did the UNPC transfer land to Israel?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again with the misunderstanding of the process.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? I think not.

So then, Israel took Palestine from the UN by force?

(COMMENT)

The UNPC Implemented the November 1947 Resolution and declared independence with there full cooperation, at the completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

No Force required. Cooperation and coordination.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UNPC was to define the borders between the two states. When did that happen?

When did the UNPC transfer land to Israel?

(COMMENT)

It is not a real-estate transaction for property ownership. It is an establishment of sovereignty. The borders were accepted as in Part II, Section B, Boundaries - as outlined in Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

The establishment of a Sovereign State is not about land ownership (a civil liberty). You can go back through the records, you will not find any of the Arab States with a deed to the property for their respective states.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

Most Respectfully,
R