Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[Rehmani]

If jews are indigenous then why they look more Russian,American, Iranian but not Palestinian or Arab.

Because arab and Palestinian never lived in Israel, they are illegal immigrants from the south and north. Thje jews look like Jews and their DNA matches that of the Jews who never left the Holy Land

Rubbish!

Prove me wrong and you will be the first to do so, but no islamonazi propaganda sources

You speak yourself that you are wrong.

PROVE IT OR SHUT UP SPREADING LIES

Jew left holly land 2000 years ago by roman and now they even don't look like arab they look like european or Iranian because Persian Empire refuge them in Iran and still 29000 jew living there happily. Jew should thanksto Muslim who took over holly land and open the Palestine door for jew as well and establish world first multiculture democracy for 800 years until 1940 wwii. Jew shoule thanks to Muslim, if jew exist in Palestine today the credit go to muslim and jew never respect to those who help to jew. there are many example around that how destroy to those governments who help them in the past. Egyptian,Iranian,Ottomon,German,Birtain and more.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

Rubbish!

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

OR in my word Israel is gift to jews from coalition in wwii, because jew help them against Germany and this undefined territory was part of Ottoman Empire which was letter on divided in small countries so they can placed Israel in there followed by armed and army support.

30 years out as they were granted the land in 1923 by the then sovereign owners

And soon world will repeat history and holly land would be given to people of palestine and I hope you will accept the master decision then.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BS!

Quote the passage with link.

 

[Rehmani]

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Just like I said.

No it doesn't try reading it again

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Just like I said.

What state would that be then

state if of Palestine dumb.

So who was its ruler, what was its money, where was its capital, what was its flag. And all these had to be in place before 1917 when it was part of the ottoman empire ?

You are behaving like dumb or cruel person. you are defending Israel jew and making story as liked. but you can not change the history and facts figure. Under Ottoman Empire this region was administer from Damascus one of the estate of Ottoman Empire. How dumb you are, please search Ottoman empire.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Just like I said.

But who tell to jews that Israel is part of Palestine so follow the order and establish the peace.

The lands sovereign owners up until may 1948.

Soon sovereign owners of holly land will take over and peace will come again under Palestinian rule.

 

[jillian]

All Palestinians without any titles or deeds to their stolen land should not be allowed to remain in Israel. Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.

Jordan should have taken them. Queen Noor never liked being asked why they didn't let them in.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

Rubbish!

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Apart from what do we do with all those who migrated illegally to Palestine after 1923, which would be 80% of the current aqrab muslim population.

You are more jew than a jew, may be if I will try to convince to some jew would be better.

WRONG you just don't make any sense. Try posting on some islamonazi board in future

Because you are not jew as you told me before and you are trying to pose some one else agenda.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

I stand corrected --- and --- apologize.

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.

(COMMENT)

I re-read my comment and agree, it is not correctly representative of the historical event. You are correct. The expulsion was from Jerusalem (Great Revolt), by General Titus; not all of Judea.

Sincerely,
R

 

[Challenger]

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

Except the arab intervention was not an act of agression, the U.N. accepted the Arab declaration of intent and there were no resolutions condemning the action.

 

[docmauser1]

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

Madnifique! So, when are "puah 'n robbed" palistanians stopping lying-braying about their "lost land and nation"? Eh?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

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

1. The communities existing in Palestine, per the Covenant, did not include communities living in Europe, which is what you are, erroneously, trying to imply.

2. The Mandate was reworded to prevent that the European Jews from making a legal claim on Palestine that the British were trying to facilitate, as explained in the Memorandum.

As for the language about a Jewish homeland, it was not meant to be a territorial state on Palestinian land. Lord Curzon is clear that although the Powers at the Versailles conferences after WW I recognized a Jewish connection to Palestine and the Balfour Declaration, the Memorandum states “this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim .". The Memorandum also states “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 . . .” Although that is what illegally happened.

3. The "rights" would apply to the people living in Palestine at the time, nine tenths of whom were Christian and Muslim, not to a future horde of invading European Zionists intent on creating a separate state in direct contravention of the Covenant's intent.

In summary, the legal history does not bear out any of your assertions. The League of Nations wanted the British Mandate of Palestine to serve the Palestinians in accordance with their status within a “Class A.” Mandate. It envisaged a Palestinian state not a Jewish State.

To wit, Sir Herbert Samuel, the first governor of the British Mandate of Palestine, urged that the “future government of Palestine” be required to repay any loans raised during the Mandate for its development. This confirms that the Mandatory envisaged a future government of Palestine, which given the demographics, would be overwhelmingly Palestinian, not made up European hordes.

 

[docmauser1]

The League of Nations wanted the British Mandate of Palestine to serve the Palestinians in accordance with their status within a “Class A.” Mandate.

Enough, enough with this bullish and garbaggio. It was not a Class A mandate, of course.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

This is a mixed bag.

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

Except the arab intervention was not an act of agression, the U.N. accepted the Arab declaration of intent and there were no resolutions condemning the action.

(COMMENT)

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. Article 51 [which actually did not applied since Israel (as well as Jordan) was not yet a member of the UN] is the lawful defense against the Aggression by the Arab League using its multiple armed forces as a form of collaborative coercion aimed against the political independence, self-determination and territorial integrity of the newly formed State of Israel.

The comment that there were no resolutions condemning the action, is not entirely representative of the UN position. The UN did say: "Any warlike decision or action on the part of Transjordan will undoubtedly be the cause of the gravest censure by the Security Council and the entire United Nations as a possible threat to peace." (PAL/162 29 April 1948)

I think it is a gross misconception to say that the UN sided with the Arab Invasion. The UN actually thought is was a threat to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The League of Nations wanted the British Mandate of Palestine to serve the Palestinians in accordance with their status within a “Class A.” Mandate.

Enough, enough with this bullish and garbaggio. It was not a Class A mandate, of course.

Garbaggio=Inconvenient fact to this bozo.

 

[montelatici]

"
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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

This is a mixed bag.

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

Except the arab intervention was not an act of agression, the U.N. accepted the Arab declaration of intent and there were no resolutions condemning the action.

(COMMENT)

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. Article 51 [which actually did not applied since Israel (as well as Jordan) was not yet a member of the UN] is the lawful defense against the Aggression by the Arab League using its multiple armed forces as a form of collaborative coercion aimed against the political independence, self-determination and territorial integrity of the newly formed State of Israel.

The comment that there were no resolutions condemning the action, is not entirely representative of the UN position. The UN did say: "Any warlike decision or action on the part of Transjordan will undoubtedly be the cause of the gravest censure by the Security Council and the entire United Nations as a possible threat to peace." (PAL/162 29 April 1948)

I think it is a gross misconception to say that the UN sided with the Arab Invasion. The UN actually thought is was a threat to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. Article 51​

Except that every account of the war (Except for the lies out of Israel.) say that the fighting was in Palestine. None of them say that Israel was entered or invaded.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.​

It looks like there is a disagreement here.

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;​

--------------------------------

Egyptian Israeli Armistice agreement, 1949

The parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure underArticle 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,​

 

[Phoenall]

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

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

So why did they enter Palestine in 1947 then ?