I will not Bow!

[Kondor3]

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

So they delude themselves into believing.

Silly, silly Palestinians.

That, and $3.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

It's certainly worked wonders for them so far...

...hasn't it?

Any more 'success' like this, and folks are gonna start joke-questioning amongst themselves: How many Palestinians can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[toastman]

Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.



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.

Nice deflection. The Palestinians have tarnished their reputation , mainly because of the second intifada, which you love to ignore. I understand that more and more Palestinians are seeking non violent ways to protest, but what they have done cannot be undone.

 

[toastman]

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.

Even if this was true....so what?? What's your point ? How does it change anything ?

 

[Victory67]

I don't advocate killing them.

I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure.

And of course none of the Israelis here who accuse me of wanting to violate Jewish rights, will dare challenge your very racist goal.

[MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION] [MENTION=35705]Phoenall[/MENTION]

This is because too many Israelis have a "blue wall of silence" and refuse to ever be critical of Israeli racism or fascism.

 

[Kondor3]

I don't advocate killing them.

I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure.

And of course none of the Israelis here who accuse me of wanting to violate Jewish rights, will dare challenge your very racist goal.

[MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION] [MENTION=35705]Phoenall[/MENTION]

This is because too many Israelis have a "blue wall of silence" and refuse to ever be critical of Israeli racism or fascism.

Awwww... I don't think you like the Expulsion Concept.

Golly-gosh gee-whiz, Emmy Lou, what to do next?

Maybe we should ask all those Muslim-Arab countries to take back the Jews THEY have expelled in the 1948-1975 timeframe, eh?

Better yet...

Israel can expel all the Muslim-Arab West Bankers and Gazans...

THEN go back to those Arab countries, and ask them to accept their old expelled Jewish populations back in return, and to provide compensation and restitution.

THEN we can ask the Jews of Israel to do the same.

And if the Jews don't make-good, after all that, then you'll get more folks jumping on-side, and joining you in a call for firmer action against Israel.

THAT seems fair...

What's good for the Muslim goose is good for the Jewish gander...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point. The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question; not an "external interference."

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.

(COMMENT)

Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established ("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them") that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination. The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.

The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination. It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option.

(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)

In 1988, we made a historic compromise by relinquishing our claim to 78 percent of the territory encompassed by historic Palestine. We accepted to establish an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on the remaining 22 percent of our territory occupied by Israel in 1967. We simultaneously recognized UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which reaffirmed the illegality of Israel’s acquisition of our territory by force. In 1993, we took one further step to engage in peace negotiations with Israel to realize our national rights to self-determination and statehood. Through such negotiations, we accepted to make further historic compromises in various temporary agreements, known as the “Oslo Accords,” (named after the city where PLO and Israeli negotiators conducted their negotiations). The temporary agreements were supposed to end five years from signing, in 1999, and lead to a permanent agreement. The permanent agreement promised to end Israel’s military occupation; to provide us with the opportunity to rebuild our country, including our economy, without Israeli interference; and to achieve a just resolution to our refugee issue based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194. This has not happened.

SOURCE: PLO-NAD History Page

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

SOURCE: A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988

SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.

Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

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


(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.

Even if this was true....so what?? What's your point ? How does it change anything ?

It does change the frame of world debate. Israel is starting to have to defend itself and that is increasingly difficult as the truth gets out.

 

[toastman]

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.

Even if this was true....so what?? What's your point ? How does it change anything ?

It does change the frame of world debate. Israel is starting to have to defend itself and that is increasingly difficult as the truth gets out.

The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.

Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point. The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question; not an "external interference."

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.

(COMMENT)

Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established ("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them") that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination. The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.

The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination. It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option.

(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

SOURCE: A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988

SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.

Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.

The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore; et al,

First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point. The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question; not an "external interference."

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.

(COMMENT)

Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established ("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them") that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination. The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.

The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination. It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option.

(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)





Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.

Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.

The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.

False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point. The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question; not an "external interference."


(COMMENT)

Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established ("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them") that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination. The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.

The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination. It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option.

(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)





Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.

Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.

The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.

False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.

Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.

 

[RoccoR]

toastman, et al,

This is a discussion of history.

The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.

Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand

(COMMENT)

I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution. There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.

Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination. They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty. Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.

False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.

Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.

After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.

 

[toastman]

toastman, et al,

This is a discussion of history.

The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.

Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand

(COMMENT)

I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution. There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.

Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination. They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty. Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will never reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts. In fact, they have stated this many times. They will reject any peace deal with Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.

Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.

After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.

After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan.

The plan is meaningless. The plan never happened.

A state can be declared by a people inside their own defined territory.

Where was that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, et al,

This is a discussion of history.

The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.

Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand

(COMMENT)

I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution. There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.

Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination. They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty. Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will never reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts. In fact, they have stated this many times. They will reject any peace deal with Israel.

A deal is something you get from a used car salesman.

 

[Kondor3]

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will never reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts. In fact, they have stated this many times. They will reject any peace deal with Israel.

Excellent.

That will make destroying Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and killing its membership far more palatable when the time comes.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[toastman]

Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.

After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.

After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan.

The plan is meaningless. The plan never happened.

A state can be declared by a people inside their own defined territory.

Where was that?

I really don't understand your question. Either way, it is irrelevant. As my link clearly states, Israel " demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN"

They met the prerequisites. This whole defined territory drivel is meaningless. You made it up

Now, are you once again saying that partition plan was and is meaningless?? For both declarations (Israel in 1948 and Palestine in 1988) ?
Because I've already provided links that say the EXACT OPPOSITE

 

[montelatici]

toastman, et al,

This is a discussion of history.

The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.

Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand

(COMMENT)

I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution. There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.

Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination. They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty. Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was clearly illegality and no matter how hard you try to convince others that ethnically cleansing most non-Jews from what is now Israel was legal.

The civil rights of the non-Jews were not safeguarded as required by the Mandate Article 2.

"ART. 2.

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

 

[toastman]

toastman, et al,

This is a discussion of history.

The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.

Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand

(COMMENT)

I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution. There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.

Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination. They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty. Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was clearly illegality and no matter how hard you try to convince others that ethnically cleansing most non-Jews from what is now Israel was legal.

The civil rights of the non-Jews were not safeguarded as required by the Mandate Article 2.

"ART. 2.

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

What specifically was illegal ?