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
