Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This always circles around.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You are implying that Palestine (undefined) had some special status.

It did not. It was a non-self-governing legal entity. Israel was a declared sovereignty. The 1948 was between Israel and the Arab League countries contributing forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

What does a war between Israel and foreign countries have to do with Palestine?

If Israel was attacked by China or Brazil, what would that have to do with Palestine?

Palestine had no military. They could not have been at war with anybody.

 

[theliq]

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly and as you say the Jews were indigenous after they eliminated the various original peoples of this area, ie Canaanites,Moabites ETC.,so too did the Palestinians become the INDIGENIOUS PEOPLE after the Jews fled or were kicked out by the Romans(The 2nd Exodus as it were) but unlike the Jews earlier... the Palestinians DID NOT SLAUGHTER THE JEWS OR ELIMINATE THEM.Those few Jews that stayed were treated with much resect by the Palestinians...............despite the howling of the Lemmings/Zionistas on here.....who are just a Mob anyway

The partition and the unauthorization of a State of Israel was not sanctioned officially at all........It was a infact an arbitrary decision by the Western Powers to dump the Jews as far away from Europe as possible....even modern day Uganda at one stage was thought of as a solution for a Jewish State,No Rocco with respect, you are wrong in your summation on all counts,your inclusion of Saxons etc., is just a ploy by you to muddy the waters,of which you are a great exponent,........steve

 

[montelatici]

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly and as you say the Jews were indigenous after they eliminated the various original peoples of this area, ie Canaanites,Moabites ETC.,so too did the Palestinians become the INDIGENIOUS PEOPLE after the Jews fled or were kicked out by the Romans(The 2nd Exodus as it were) but unlike the Jews earlier... the Palestinians DID NOT SLAUGHTER THE JEWS OR ELIMINATE THEM.Those few Jews that stayed were treated with much resect by the Palestinians...............despite the howling of the Lemmings/Zionistas on here.....who are just a Mob anyway

The partition and the unauthorization of a State of Israel was not sanctioned officially at all........It was a infact an arbitrary decision by the Western Powers to dump the Jews as far away from Europe as possible....even modern day Uganda at one stage was thought of as a solution for a Jewish State,No Rocco with respect, you are wrong in your summation on all counts,your inclusion of Saxons etc., is just a ploy by you to muddy the waters,of which you are a great exponent,........steve

The few Jews that did not convert to the Roman religions and later Christianity, left. Then the Christians of Roman/Byzantine Palestine, who once were Jewish then Roman Pagans and then Christians converted to Islam. What's not to understand? The Jews now in control in Israel are Europeans who have nothing to do with the original Jews that evicted the Canaanites, etc.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Laussanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but neither the LoN nor the Mandates acquired any land. They held the land in trust for the inhabitants of the respective newly created states.

Where does it say that, as you know treaties are not open ended to the point that they can be interpreted many ways. What they say is what they mean. And in this case the sovereignty of the land was passed on to the LoN , not the inhabitants of the land. This meant that under the Laws prevalent at the time the LoN could dispose of the land as they saw fit. If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?

If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?​

They didn't. Ask Rocco. The British passed the baton to the UNPC.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as “provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.

Partition and the Law - 1948​

What about the other mandates then, like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

By the way Britain was not the mandate they were the ones who ran the Mandate for the LoN who took up the reins of sovereignty of the old Ottoman empire.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)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. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

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. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

The certain communities were the communities formerly of the Turks and included Palestine. The British signed the Covenant agreeing to Article 20, which required that any agreements contrary to the Covenant, which precluded Britain from denying self-determination to the Palestinian people through antecedent agreements, be abrogated. You are out of your depth, sir.

If Palestine was not specifically mentioned then the treaty does not apply so you are wrong again freddy boy

 

[Phoenall]

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly and as you say the Jews were indigenous after they eliminated the various original peoples of this area, ie Canaanites,Moabites ETC.,so too did the Palestinians become the INDIGENIOUS PEOPLE after the Jews fled or were kicked out by the Romans(The 2nd Exodus as it were) but unlike the Jews earlier... the Palestinians DID NOT SLAUGHTER THE JEWS OR ELIMINATE THEM.Those few Jews that stayed were treated with much resect by the Palestinians...............despite the howling of the Lemmings/Zionistas on here.....who are just a Mob anyway

The partition and the unauthorization of a State of Israel was not sanctioned officially at all........It was a infact an arbitrary decision by the Western Powers to dump the Jews as far away from Europe as possible....even modern day Uganda at one stage was thought of as a solution for a Jewish State,No Rocco with respect, you are wrong in your summation on all counts,your inclusion of Saxons etc., is just a ploy by you to muddy the waters,of which you are a great exponent,........steve

The few Jews that did not convert to the Roman religions and later Christianity, left. Then the Christians of Roman/Byzantine Palestine, who once were Jewish then Roman Pagans and then Christians converted to Islam. What's not to understand? The Jews now in control in Israel are Europeans who have nothing to do with the original Jews that evicted the Canaanites, etc.

Everything if you cant produce unbiased and non partisan evidence to support your claims

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinian Christians and Muslims were parties to the Covenant as a community previously under Turkish rule. Just as the communities in Egypt, Syria, Lebanion, etc. As I said, you are out of your depth.

Wrong as the Covenant says that they are covered under those not able to stand on their own, which is still the same today as the Palestinians are ably proving

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, theliq, montelatici, et al,

You, theliq, and montelatici, clearly responded back-to-back with (what appeared to me to be) the intent to imply (or support the implication) that Article 20 and Article 22 have appended some specific obligation or promise of sovereignty.

Your two sentence reply was intended to suggest that the fact that there is a question of legality in all cases of trial by combat relative to independence is unlawful. That would be wrong in both the case of Israel (which was clearly attacked by an act of aggression) in which the UN supported Armistice agreed to the lines of demarcation, and the fact that the Arab Palestinians were not party to any Armistice or subsequent treaty which set the new international boundaries.

Nothing here disputes my post which makes me wonder about your reason for your post.

(COMMENT)

This is not the first time in which you and fellow pro-Palestinians attempt to use the League of Nation Covenant as an obligatory device that suggests the actions from May 1948 on were somehow illegal; and that the Arab Palestinians had some prior established claim on the territory involved. Or that, in defense of their right to self-determination, the Jewish People did not have the right to defend and retain territories lost in combat by the aggressor (Arab League Forces) who attacked first; with the territory within the demarcation of the Armistice shall remain in control of the Israelis until such in force --- until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.

REMEMBER: There is NO Armistice Agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, thus they are not an aggrieved party to the conflict. They may not attempt to enforce any aspect of the Covenant or Armistice to which they were not a party (the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case).

The only point at which the Israelis might (remotely) have had to defend their control of territory was as a result of the Six-Day War (1967); although that was a preemptive strike. However the parties involved in the Six-Day War were Jordan and Egypt; both of which have resolved their individual claim and complaint by Peace Treaty. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the dispute or combat outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.

Which did not materialise until 1988, before this it was just an undefined area on the map

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah --- Yeah ---- "out of my depth."

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)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. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

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. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

The certain communities were the communities formerly of the Turks and included Palestine. The British signed the Covenant agreeing to Article 20, which required that any agreements contrary to the Covenant, which precluded Britain from denying self-determination to the Palestinian people through antecedent agreements, be abrogated. You are out of your depth, sir.

(COMMENT)

That is an assumption on you part.

IF the phrase "certain communities" meant "all communities," THEN --- it would have said "all communities." Certain communities imply that there are communities to which it doesn't apply.

Britain never denied the "Right of Self-determination" to the Arab Palestinians.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
​

In fact, at the time the Covenant (18 April 1946, when its assets and responsibilities were transferred to the United Nations) was signed (1919) there was no understood or universally accepted enforceable international law that acknowledge the "right of self-determination." (Since you claim that there is, please tell me the citation that was in force prior to the UN Charter.)

Chapter 1, Article 1(2), UN Charter ----
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
​

The requirement is to develop friendly relations, not to enforce (but based on respect for the principle of) self-determination. It must be remembered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not list "self-determination" as a right. For that reason, the wording is: "equal rights and self-determination" as two different concepts.

Self determination (international law)

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties. For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century. In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination. This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s.

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum. Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

As I said, you are out of your depth. Stop making a fool of yourself.


MANDATES A.

MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].

A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.

It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

The French Mandate for Syria is drawn on the same lines as ours for Mesopotamia, though not actually identical with it. There is nothing in it to which we desire to object.

The Mandate for Mesopotamia has passed through several stages, tending in each case to further simplification. It has been shown to, and approved by, the French and Italian Governments, to whom we were under a pledge at San Remo to submit it In its last printed form this Mandate was approved by the Cabinet a few weeks ago . . .

As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises. When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft.

In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.”

367 [4996]

It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend.

Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-;

” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.”

Simultaneously the Zionists pressed for the concession of preferential rights for themselves in respect of public works, &c, in Article 11.

It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . .

During the last few hours a telegram has been received from Sir H. Samuel, urging that, in order to facilitate the raising of loans by the Palestine Administration, which will otherwise be impossible, words should be added to Article 27, providing that on the termination of the Mandate, the future Government of Palestine shall fully honour the financial obligations incurred by the Palestinian Administration during the period of the Mandate. This appears to be a quite reasonable demand, and I have accordingly added words (italicised at the end of Article 27) in order to meet it. With this explanation, therefore, I hope that the Mandates in the form now submitted may be formally passed and forwarded to the Council of the League.

C. OF K. November 30, 1920.

End/ (Not Continued

And this was solved by splitting the mandate of Palestine into two separate parts. The greater being the arab Palestine later called trans Jordan, and the Jewish Palestine later to be Israel and Palestine. This simple tactic allowed the Mandate of Palestine to go ahead as originally planned.

SEEMS THAT YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR DEPTH HERE FREDDY BOY

 

[Phoenall]

The Memorandum confirms that the British agreed, on the threat of the French and Italians would not approve the Palestine Mandate, that Palestine was one of the Class A Mandate and thus the is one of the "certain" "communities" of the former Turkish Empire per the Covenant.

Again, you are out of your depth. Brainwashed actually.

And it became trans Jordan or didn't you read the full details ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Laussanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but neither the LoN nor the Mandates acquired any land. They held the land in trust for the inhabitants of the respective newly created states.

Where does it say that, as you know treaties are not open ended to the point that they can be interpreted many ways. What they say is what they mean. And in this case the sovereignty of the land was passed on to the LoN , not the inhabitants of the land. This meant that under the Laws prevalent at the time the LoN could dispose of the land as they saw fit. If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?

If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?​

They didn't. Ask Rocco. The British passed the baton to the UNPC.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as “provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.

Partition and the Law - 1948​

What about the other mandates then, like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

By the way Britain was not the mandate they were the ones who ran the Mandate for the LoN who took up the reins of sovereignty of the old Ottoman empire.

Why don't you try reading my post before responding?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This always circles around.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You are implying that Palestine (undefined) had some special status.

It did not. It was a non-self-governing legal entity. Israel was a declared sovereignty. The 1948 was between Israel and the Arab League countries contributing forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

What does a war between Israel and foreign countries have to do with Palestine?

If Israel was attacked by China or Brazil, what would that have to do with Palestine?

Palestine had no military. They could not have been at war with anybody.

And yet the Palestinians took up arms against Israel in 1947 which led to 50,000 being evicted from Israel as enemy agents.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This always circles around.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You are implying that Palestine (undefined) had some special status.

It did not. It was a non-self-governing legal entity. Israel was a declared sovereignty. The 1948 was between Israel and the Arab League countries contributing forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

What does a war between Israel and foreign countries have to do with Palestine?

If Israel was attacked by China or Brazil, what would that have to do with Palestine?

Palestine had no military. They could not have been at war with anybody.

And yet the Palestinians took up arms against Israel in 1947 which led to 50,000 being evicted from Israel as enemy agents.

Do you have a link for that?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Laussanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but neither the LoN nor the Mandates acquired any land. They held the land in trust for the inhabitants of the respective newly created states.

Where does it say that, as you know treaties are not open ended to the point that they can be interpreted many ways. What they say is what they mean. And in this case the sovereignty of the land was passed on to the LoN , not the inhabitants of the land. This meant that under the Laws prevalent at the time the LoN could dispose of the land as they saw fit. If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?

If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?​

They didn't. Ask Rocco. The British passed the baton to the UNPC.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as “provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.

Partition and the Law - 1948​

What about the other mandates then, like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

By the way Britain was not the mandate they were the ones who ran the Mandate for the LoN who took up the reins of sovereignty of the old Ottoman empire.

Why don't you try reading my post before responding?

I did and it clearly says that the LoN became sovereign land owners before the date of this treaty that was never made international law.

And once again you resort to biased and partisan sources for your information even though you know they are not truthful. So you lose again because you use flawed information

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This always circles around.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You are implying that Palestine (undefined) had some special status.

It did not. It was a non-self-governing legal entity. Israel was a declared sovereignty. The 1948 was between Israel and the Arab League countries contributing forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

What does a war between Israel and foreign countries have to do with Palestine?

If Israel was attacked by China or Brazil, what would that have to do with Palestine?

Palestine had no military. They could not have been at war with anybody.

And yet the Palestinians took up arms against Israel in 1947 which led to 50,000 being evicted from Israel as enemy agents.

Do you have a link for that?

Palestine 1918 to 1948 - History Learning Site

In 1947, the newly formed United Nations accepted the idea to partition Palestine into a zone for the Jews (Israel) and a zone for the Arabs (Palestine). With this United Nations proposal, the British withdrew from the region on May 14th 1948. Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel.

 

[Challenger]

montelatici, et al,

Just how are you trying to use this information and to prove what.

You mean like the Jews from Europe and went to Palestine?

I believe I already supplied the one thousand years of documentation that shows Jews went from Judea to Rome back to Israel.
You're really into ignoring material you can find on Wikipedia, Amazon or a Judaic bookstore.

Though completely false, even if it were true, I doubt that the people of Normandy who left Scandinavia a thousand or so years ago, would be welcome to set up a state for themselves in Norway at the expense of the Norwegians, you idiot.

You are ignoring the facts and accepting propaganda, which is what Hasbara editors have published in Wiki.

Now the facts:

"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"

"Though the finding may seem intuitive, it contradicts the notion that European Jews mostly descend from people who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago."

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

(COMMENT)

Almost 2000 years ago, (≈ AD 70), Jews were expelled en masse in 70 CE by their Roman conquerors (The Roman army, led by the future Emperor Titus). So what does the timeline prove to you?

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no historical evidence of a mass expulsion from Roman Judea in 70CE. Titus' objective was to destroy once and for all, the Temple cult in Jerusalem.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Nonsense.

The Memorandum confirms that the British agreed, on the threat of the French and Italians would not approve the Palestine Mandate, that Palestine was one of the Class A Mandate and thus the is one of the "certain" "communities" of the former Turkish Empire per the Covenant.

Again, you are out of your depth. Brainwashed actually.

(COMMENT)

In diplomatic discussions, this type of bantering to hammer-out language takes place all the time. In this case, the MEMO is not talking about the concern for sovereignty or independence of the Arab Palestinian community at all. In fact, the MEMO does not even mention them. The issue was on the magnitude and the obligation to the Jewish People relative to the phrase: "the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home." This is MANDATE Language --- versus your assertion that it pertains to --- COVENANT Language "certain communities." Relative to the language being discussed here in this MEMO, the final phrase included the "historical connection" and the MANDATE included all three bits of passage:

• "adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"
• "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine"
• "the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"

Relative to the meaning of "certain communities" in the COVENANT versus the MANDATE: It should be noted that the term "communities" encompasses both the Jewish community as well as the Arab community. Examples:

• The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
• Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed.
• rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine
• The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.

When the language wants to exclusively pertain to the Arab community, it uses the language like: "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Your interpretation that "certain communities" has an exclusive meaning to Arabs is simply unfounded. The use of the phrase "certain communities" in Article 22 of the Covenant is ambiguous. It could pertain to any number of communities within the larger group of communities. It does not pertain specifically (or exclusively) to a specific regional community.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Programmer]

Original Americans were Mahicans.

 

[Challenger]

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

Depends which theory you believe. British culture remained during the Roman occupation, as did the majority of the population. When the Romans left, the indigenous population continued; true there was some intermarriage, but the bulk of the population just stopped speaking Latin (if they ever did to begin with) and abandonded those funny square houses with their underfloor heating systems. Roman cities gradually disappeared due to lack of use. When the Saxons came, did they come as colonists or conquerors? Did Saxon culture spread or did Saxon genes? The Saxons certainly became the new aristocracy and in 500 years or so Anglo-Saxon became the lingua franca and dominant culture, except in the Danelaw where Norse was spoken. Similarly, when the Normans came, was there a mass influx of Norman people into the country, or just a new governing elite? Recent genetic studies seem to indicate that the indigenous population of Britain has remained fairly constant, with admixtures of foreign genetic material, which tends to support the theory of cultural domination and eventual assimilation as opposed mass migration and native expulsion.

If an indigenous population adopts the language and culture of a conqueror it remains indigenous, regardless of time. "Judeans" have adopted Iranian, Greco-Roman and Arabic culture and languages over the millenia, to name but a few. The native population remains indigenous to the area. For Jewish Europeans, north Africans, and Etheopians to claim ownership by virtue of some semitic material admixture in their genome and the writings of a book of fables, is quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

So your position is that the Arab League Forces were not acting on behave of the Arab People of Palestine?

You are saying that the Lebanese Forces, Syrian Forces, Jordanian Forces, Egyptian Forces, and other Arab Augmented Forces, had nothing to do with the plight of the Arab Palestinian.

Now that is interesting.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This always circles around.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You are implying that Palestine (undefined) had some special status.

It did not. It was a non-self-governing legal entity. Israel was a declared sovereignty. The 1948 was between Israel and the Arab League countries contributing forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

What does a war between Israel and foreign countries have to do with Palestine?

If Israel was attacked by China or Brazil, what would that have to do with Palestine?

Palestine had no military. They could not have been at war with anybody.

(COMMENT)

You are trying to scrambling the issue.

What then was the complaint of the non-existent government?

You are saying that the Arab Palestinian did not ask for assistance from the Arab League and therefore the introduction of the Arab League Forces was an independent act of aggression?

WOW!

Most Respectfully,
R