I will not Bow!

[ForeverYoung436]

You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.

But most settlements are not built on such land. They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.

Can you prove that the land was not owned by Jews prior to 1948 ?

Does it matter if any proof is shown? Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other. Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.

If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.

Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?

Not only G-d, but history, archaeology, safe haven and refuge, ancestry, etc.

 

[Victory67]

Does it matter if any proof is shown? Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other. Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.

If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.

Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?

The British thoroughly investigated the issue of land ownership in Palestine.

They found that the vast majority of the land was owned by Arabs.

But of course these findings will be disregarded by Israelis because it counters their irredentalist goals.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. It was the UNSCOP that made the recommendation for the Partition Plan and not Israel. These recommendation covered:

I. The independent State of Palestine
II. Outline of the structure and required provisions in the constitutions of Palestine
III. Boundaries of the Arab and Jewish States in the independent State of Palestine
IV. Capitulations
V. The Holy Places, religious interests and Jerusalem

A. Religious interests and Holy Places
B. Jerusalem
C. Irrevocability of provisions​

VI. International responsibility for Jewish displaced persons
VII. Jewish immigration into Palestine​

Does it matter if any proof is shown? Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other. Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.

If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.

Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?

The British thoroughly investigated the issue of land ownership in Palestine.

They found that the vast majority of the land was owned by Arabs.

But of course these findings will be disregarded by Israelis because it counters their irredentalist goals.

(COMMENT)

The Israelis did not disregard anything. They followed the multinational UNSCOP recommendation that became the General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Land ownership and demographics were not the only considerations made in the development of the recommendations made.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Victory67]

Victory67, et al,

The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. It was the UNSCOP that made the recommendation for the Partition Plan and not Israel. These recommendation covered:

I. The independent State of Palestine
II. Outline of the structure and required provisions in the constitutions of Palestine
III. Boundaries of the Arab and Jewish States in the independent State of Palestine
IV. Capitulations
V. The Holy Places, religious interests and Jerusalem

A. Religious interests and Holy Places
B. Jerusalem
C. Irrevocability of provisions​

VI. International responsibility for Jewish displaced persons
VII. Jewish immigration into Palestine​

The Israelis did not disregard anything. They followed the multinational UNSCOP recommendation that became the General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Land ownership and demographics were not the only considerations made in the development of the recommendations made.

Most Respectfully,
R

My point is that the Israelis here will ignore the British findings that most of Palestine's private land was owned by Arabs and not Jews.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

Your point leads us where?

My point is that the Israelis here will ignore the British findings that most of Palestine's private land was owned by Arabs and not Jews.

(COMMENT)

Whether the Israelis ignore it or not, the recommendation was independent of the Israelis notice of the data.

It was the UNSCOP made the recommendations and the UNPC implemented the recommendations.

What is the connection? What are you accusing the Israelis of in the first place?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Victory67]

Whether the Israelis ignore it or not, the recommendation was independent of the Israelis notice of the data.

It was the UNSCOP made the recommendations and the UNPC implemented the recommendations.

What is the connection? What are you accusing the Israelis of in the first place?

Most Respectfully,
R

The issue is the building of settlements on confiscated private property in the West Bank.

This is illegal under the 4th Geneva Conventions.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

We can all chuckle at this.

The issue is the building of settlements on confiscated private property in the West Bank.

This is illegal under the 4th Geneva Conventions.

(COMMENT)

This is such a minor issue, since the issue has to be negotiated anyway.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Victory67, et al,

The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. It was the UNSCOP that made the recommendation for the Partition Plan and not Israel. These recommendation covered:

I. The independent State of Palestine
II. Outline of the structure and required provisions in the constitutions of Palestine
III. Boundaries of the Arab and Jewish States in the independent State of Palestine
IV. Capitulations
V. The Holy Places, religious interests and Jerusalem

A. Religious interests and Holy Places
B. Jerusalem
C. Irrevocability of provisions​

VI. International responsibility for Jewish displaced persons
VII. Jewish immigration into Palestine​

Does it matter if any proof is shown? Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other. Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.

If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.

Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?

The British thoroughly investigated the issue of land ownership in Palestine.

They found that the vast majority of the land was owned by Arabs.

But of course these findings will be disregarded by Israelis because it counters their irredentalist goals.

(COMMENT)

The Israelis did not disregard anything. They followed the multinational UNSCOP recommendation that became the General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Land ownership and demographics were not the only considerations made in the development of the recommendations made.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

Illegal external interference extraordinaire!

And nobody from Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

This is another complaint from the perpetual victim.

The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

Illegal external interference extraordinaire!

And nobody from Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The territory was under UN Mandate/Trusteeship, because the indigenous population could not then (much as it does now) demonstrate that it was able to stand alone, practice tolerance in their international relations, settle their international disputes by nonviolent means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered. Neither was it the case that the indigenous population could refrain in their from the use of threat and force against the territorial integrity or political independence of an another State.

• The external interference was the 5 Arab League Nations that invaded the UN Trusteeship.

• There were no regional Jewish or Arab direct membership on the UNSCOP. It was a decision best left to the independent members and the TrusteeShip/Mandate Commission.

Having said that, there was invited Jewish or Arab Palestinian participation; although as usual, the Arab Palestinian lacked a certain enthusiasm in the crafting of the outcome.

VIII. LIAISON OFFICERS

Rule 31

The mandatory Power, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Jewish Agency for Palestine may appoint liaison officers to the Committee who shall supply such information or render such other assistance as the Committee may require. The liaison officers may, suo motu, present at the discretion of the Committee such information as they may think advisable.​

Sir: 8 July 1947

I have the honour to inform you, on behalf of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has communicated to the Committee the cable of 13 June, signed by you which conveyed to the United Nations decision of the Arab Higher Committee with regard to the attitude of Palestine Arabs toward the work of the Committee.

The Committee has noted with genuine regret this decision of the Arab Higher Committee. In this connection, your attention is called by my statement broadcast from the Palestine Broadcasting Service Studio on 16 June, at which time I emphasized that "the Committee earnestly hopes for full cooperation in its task from all elements in the population."

On behalf of the Committee, I reiterate this statement with particular reference to the Arab population of Palestine. The Committee would welcome expressions of the Arab viewpoint.

Sincerely yours,
Emil Sandstrom
Chairman, United Nations
Special Committee on Palestine​

SOURCE: A/AC.13/SR.23 13 July 1947

SOURCE: A/364 Add. 1 3 September 1947

And the Statements by the representatives of the Arab countries also participated, as in the 38th Meeting Held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday 22 July 1947 (A/AC.13/PV.38 4 August 1947).

While the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians) lacked a certain air of cooperation, as you can see, the UNSCOP attempted to bring them into the process.

The Recommendations, if they were absent Arab Palestinian input, was not a product of the UNSCOP Process shutting them out as you would have the discussion group believe.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

This is another complaint from the perpetual victim.

The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

Illegal external interference extraordinaire!

And nobody from Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The territory was under UN Mandate/Trusteeship, because the indigenous population could not then (much as it does now) demonstrate that it was able to stand alone, practice tolerance in their international relations, settle their international disputes by nonviolent means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered. Neither was it the case that the indigenous population could refrain in their from the use of threat and force against the territorial integrity or political independence of an another State.

• The external interference was the 5 Arab League Nations that invaded the UN Trusteeship.

• There were no regional Jewish or Arab direct membership on the UNSCOP. It was a decision best left to the independent members and the TrusteeShip/Mandate Commission.

Having said that, there was invited Jewish or Arab Palestinian participation; although as usual, the Arab Palestinian lacked a certain enthusiasm in the crafting of the outcome.

VIII. LIAISON OFFICERS

Rule 31

The mandatory Power, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Jewish Agency for Palestine may appoint liaison officers to the Committee who shall supply such information or render such other assistance as the Committee may require. The liaison officers may, suo motu, present at the discretion of the Committee such information as they may think advisable.​

Sir: 8 July 1947

I have the honour to inform you, on behalf of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has communicated to the Committee the cable of 13 June, signed by you which conveyed to the United Nations decision of the Arab Higher Committee with regard to the attitude of Palestine Arabs toward the work of the Committee.

The Committee has noted with genuine regret this decision of the Arab Higher Committee. In this connection, your attention is called by my statement broadcast from the Palestine Broadcasting Service Studio on 16 June, at which time I emphasized that "the Committee earnestly hopes for full cooperation in its task from all elements in the population."

On behalf of the Committee, I reiterate this statement with particular reference to the Arab population of Palestine. The Committee would welcome expressions of the Arab viewpoint.

Sincerely yours,
Emil Sandstrom
Chairman, United Nations
Special Committee on Palestine​

SOURCE: A/AC.13/SR.23 13 July 1947

SOURCE: A/364 Add. 1 3 September 1947

And the Statements by the representatives of the Arab countries also participated, as in the 38th Meeting Held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday 22 July 1947 (A/AC.13/PV.38 4 August 1947).

While the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians) lacked a certain air of cooperation, as you can see, the UNSCOP attempted to bring them into the process.

The Recommendations, if they were absent Arab Palestinian input, was not a product of the UNSCOP Process shutting them out as you would have the discussion group believe.

Most Respectfully,
R

All smokescreen aside:

Reaffirming the obligation of Member States to comply with the
principles of the Charter and the resolutions of the United Nations
regarding the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all
peoples can freely determine, without external interference, their
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development,

Reaffirming also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination,...

A/RES/50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes

Does it say without external interference, except by...? No it does not.

Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, without external interference,... you always respond with a list of shit that foreigners did.

Natives are internal. Foreigners are external. Try to keep that straight.

 

[toastman]

Why is it that whenever you don't like what Rocco says, you call it a smokescreen. He addressed what you said and even more.

And he explained very well about why foreigners were involved, Tinmore. Learn to fuckin comprehend

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why is it that whenever you don't like what Rocco says, you call it a smokescreen. He addressed what you said and even more.

And he explained very well about why foreigners were involved, Tinmore. Learn to fuckin comprehend

Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, without external interference,... you always respond with a list of shit that foreigners did.

What did I say that was incorrect?

 

[Kondor3]

Why were foreigners involved?

Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.

Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.

Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.

You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.

The point is also moot.

Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.

If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.

In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.

Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.

 

[toastman]

Why is it that whenever you don't like what Rocco says, you call it a smokescreen. He addressed what you said and even more.

And he explained very well about why foreigners were involved, Tinmore. Learn to fuckin comprehend

Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, without external interference,... you always respond with a list of shit that foreigners did.

What did I say that was incorrect?

You always complain that foreigners were/are involved in Palestine's affairs

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why were foreigners involved?

Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.

Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.

Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.

You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.

The point is also moot.

Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.

If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.

In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.

Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.

Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.

Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.

The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Why were foreigners involved?

Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.

Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.

Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.

You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.

The point is also moot.

Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.

If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.

In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.

Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.

Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.

Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.

The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.

By pushing a wheelchair-bound old man into the sea? By blowing up a family at their Passover meal? By killing Israeli athletes competing in a foreign country? By smothering an old lady in her bed in Uganda, after she was left behind in the Entebbe raid?

 

[Indeependent]

Why were foreigners involved?

Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.

Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.

Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.

You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.

The point is also moot.

Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.

If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.

In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.

Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.

Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.

The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.

By pushing a wheelchair-bound old man into the sea? By blowing up a family at their Passover meal? By killing Israeli athletes competing in a foreign country? By smothering an old lady in her bed in Uganda, after she was left behind in the Entebbe raid?

Ancient History!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

You are purposely confusing what "external interference" is in this case.

Does it say without external interference, except by...? No it does not.

Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, without external interference,... you always respond with a list of shit that foreigners did.

Natives are internal. Foreigners are external. Try to keep that straight.

(COMMENT)

The Territory named Palestine by the Allied Power was, depending on the time frame, either under the full powers of legislation and of administration of either the UK as the Mandatory (Article 1 of the Mandate) or the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT); they are on the inside (the internal influence) of the territory. Anyone on the outside of the territory is the "external interference;" including the Arab League Powers that have to exit their sovereign territory in order to enter the Mandate Territory/Trusteeship.

When the Jewish Agency exercised their right of Self-Determination under the implementation instruction of the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT), it became sovereign, pursuant to the borders originally established by the Resolution being implemented by the UNPC ("guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue") it became a second legal entity. Any force exiting their sovereignty to effect entry into either the remaining unapportioned Mandate Territory/Trusteeship or the new Sovereign State of Israel became an "external interference."

The term "external interference;" and "foreigner" or not interchangeable, and not synonymous. Please note that the 27 February 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172 - Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes - which came five decades later, does not use the word foreigner or foreign even once in the entire document. That is so you don't get confused. While the Allied Powers may be foreign to you, they were either the Mandatory or the Successor Government for the territory in question.

(PREMISE)

• "you always respond with a list of shit that foreigners did."

This may be true. But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question.

I hope you now understand the difference between the non-applicable term of "foreign" and applicable term "external."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why were foreigners involved?

Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.

Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.

Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.

You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.

The point is also moot.

Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.

If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.

In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.

Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.

Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.

The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.

By pushing a wheelchair-bound old man into the sea? By blowing up a family at their Passover meal? By killing Israeli athletes competing in a foreign country? By smothering an old lady in her bed in Uganda, after she was left behind in the Entebbe raid?

Chickenfeed compared to Israel's crimes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

You are purposely confusing what "external interference" is in this case.

Does it say without external interference, except by...? No it does not.

Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, without external interference,... you always respond with a list of shit that foreigners did.

Natives are internal. Foreigners are external. Try to keep that straight.

(COMMENT)

The Territory named Palestine by the Allied Power was, depending on the time frame, either under the full powers of legislation and of administration of either the UK as the Mandatory (Article 1 of the Mandate) or the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT); they are on the inside (the internal influence) of the territory. Anyone on the outside of the territory is the "external interference;" including the Arab League Powers that have to exit their sovereign territory in order to enter the Mandate Territory/Trusteeship.

When the Jewish Agency exercised their right of Self-Determination under the implementation instruction of the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT), it became sovereign, pursuant to the borders originally established by the Resolution being implemented by the UNPC ("guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue") it became a second legal entity. Any force exiting their sovereignty to effect entry into either the remaining unapportioned Mandate Territory/Trusteeship or the new Sovereign State of Israel became an "external interference."

The term "external interference;" and "foreigner" or not interchangeable, and not synonymous. Please note that the 27 February 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172 - Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes - which came five decades later, does not use the word foreigner or foreign even once in the entire document. That is so you don't get confused. While the Allied Powers may be foreign to you, they were either the Mandatory or the Successor Government for the territory in question.

(PREMISE)

• "you always respond with a list of shit that foreigners did."

This may be true. But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question.

I hope you now understand the difference between the non-applicable term of "foreign" and applicable term "external."

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be true. But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question.

OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.

If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.

If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.