Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[Rehmani]

You can not change the facts and figure and history. Instead, Please educate to jew that they are not especial race and masaya is not coming. And also teach them how to live with neighbors.

The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home. Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

What illegal invasion was that then as the Jews were invited by the legal sovereign land owners to migrate and close settle the land. It is you that supports the illegal arab muslim invasions from the 1870's to the present day

Talk to your friend Ruddy as he already accepted that jews were invited by the muslim 500 years ago. And I will say muslim made wrong decision and roman were right about the jew, they can not be trusted.

 

[Rehmani]

You can not change the facts and figure and history. Instead, Please educate to jew that they are not especial race and masaya is not coming. And also teach them how to live with neighbors.

The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home. Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

"Illegal invasion by Jews"? Well lets see now. Which came first, Solomon's Temple, or the Al Aqsa Mosque?

Stop nonsense just think how establish peace in holy land.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Please Montelatici post he explain well.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Please see Montelatici post or may be you already have that I think he explain well.

 

[MJB12741]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Please see Montelatici post or may be you already have that I think he explain well.

Monte's posts are wonderful. So little left for us to laugh at these days while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before. You don't express the entire context.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.
​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.

So are you saying the non native Muslim Palestinians have the rights to attack & kill the indigenous Jewiish Palestinians & claim it is their land/

No the indigenous Palestinian population (Muslim, Druze, Christian and Jewish), has the right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them.

(COMMENT)

Self-defense is a right, it does not mean you can achieve it. It does not mean that some authority is going to hand it to you on a sliver platter. And, it does not mean that their are not limitations to its application. The limits are wide and varied, but do include:

Chapter I --- UN Charter
Article 2(4)

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ​

Chapter VII --- UN Charter
Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.​

A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970
DoP International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (its parent derivative authority) clearly makes it plain that guiding principle concepts include:

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, is not law. It is a non-binding resolution; it is not universally understood, customary or statutory law. I know that there are several resolutions out there, to include A/RES/2649
30 November 1970, A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978, and A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974, all of which contain the same or similar language.

Phrases like "by any means" and "all means necessary" have a consequence involved. The use of force against an Occupying Power is punishable by law (IHL Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention). If the protected persons of the Palestine forge and attack against the Israeli, the are subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

(BOTTOM LINE)

Attacking Israel will have consequences. Arab Palestinians who conduct such activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or in cases where the Hostile Arab Palestinian is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, are NOT performing condoned activities under the DoP and thus, subject to the legal consequences as any criminal. Hostile activities that appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; are subject to such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law.

The Palestinian has no special dispensation to employ jihadist tactics or engage in an armed struggle against the Israeli government.

CONSEQUENCES!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.

Oh now I get it. You see you Zionists, the Al Aqsa Mosque & Church of the Nativity came before Solomon's Temple. Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.

Well at least those two structures are tangible. There is absolutely no archaological evidence for the existence of Solomon's temple, none, nada, zip.

Solomon's Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read paragraph 3.

The only evidence so far found has been proved to have been fabricated fakes in 2014. Even if you can't dig on the site itself, archeologists have found nothing to corroborate what the Jewish holy book asserts. Nice try though.

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

Correct and this meant that the Jews were the soveriegns of the Jewish section of Palestine. So why do you oppose this simple action yet defend and support the arab muslims taking land that was not theirs ?

Similarly why don't you understand too that roman kicked out jew from holly land and Arab muslim welcome back to jew during Ottoman Empire instead jew respect arab muslim they pushed them into camps and invade their land and home now you tell me that do you trust cheater who cheat you like jew are cheating to Arab msulim who accommodate jew in holy land.

This is a common misconception, the Romans destroyed Herod's temple and forbade the Jerusalem Cult (Temple Judaism) to practice there. The Jewish religion was untouched elsewhere in Palestine and throughout the Roman Empire (unless they provoked the Romans in some way). The Jewish inhabitants of Palestine gradually left to join other Jewish communities in Mesopotamia, North Africa or Europe or stayed and converted to Islam.

You are quite correct that those who chose to remain or chose to return later were generally welcomed by the Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire, most of them however, chose to settle in the Balkans or Anatolia, very few chose to settle in Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

Correct and this meant that the Jews were the soveriegns of the Jewish section of Palestine. So why do you oppose this simple action yet defend and support the arab muslims taking land that was not theirs ?

Similarly why don't you understand too that roman kicked out jew from holly land and Arab muslim welcome back to jew during Ottoman Empire instead jew respect arab muslim they pushed them into camps and invade their land and home now you tell me that do you trust cheater who cheat you like jew are cheating to Arab msulim who accommodate jew in holy land.

Get it right the romans took all the young and fit as slaves back to Rome, leaving those they did not want in Israel. The arab muslims started the genocide when mo'mad the unholy prophet wiped them all out at Medina, a Jewish city . After the fall of the Roman empire the Jews made their way back to Israel were they were met by hordes of arab muslims acting on the commands in the koran and hadiths and wiping out the Jews and Christians. In 1099 the arab muslims were evicted from the lands of Palestine never to return. The Ottomans conquered the land in the 16C and they partly allowed Jews to return only to later turn on them and do their favourite massacre tactics.

I give you kithman and taqiya that shows the muslims are cheaters and fraudsters and not to be trusted. You forget that as of 1923 the land was Jewish under international law, and because the arab muslims of Palestine sided with the Ottomans they lost the right to any land.

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

1. The definition of invasion:

"Definition: An unarmed military campaign across national boundaries, with a comparatively long-range objective or duration, in restraint of flagrant injustice, oppression, invasion, or genocide."

2. An invasion of people, from a region to another region, who intend to remove the existing inhabitants of the other region through ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is a crime, hence illegal. Note: The Zionist and subsequently "Transfer Committee" headed by Yosef Weitz were clear on the goal of ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Note: the link above does work.

Did you read your link Abdul, the part that says

The migration of the arabs of the land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion....(it was) a tactic of war on the part of the arabs.


So once again you shoot yourself in the foot and bring evidence that proves you wrong

Please agree with Montelatici and spread the peace.

Did you read what I found in his link that I will spread willingly, that the Jews did not force the arab muslims out but that they left willingly


The migration of the arabs of the land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion....(it was) a tactic of war on the part of the arabs.

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

 

[Phoenall]

The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home. Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

What illegal invasion was that then as the Jews were invited by the legal sovereign land owners to migrate and close settle the land. It is you that supports the illegal arab muslim invasions from the 1870's to the present day

Talk to your friend Ruddy as he already accepted that jews were invited by the muslim 500 years ago. And I will say muslim made wrong decision and roman were right about the jew, they can not be trusted.

I accept the Ottomans accepted the Jews, and then turned on them. I will say the world made the wrong decision when it accepted muslims into its heart, now we are paying the price and we can no longer afford it. I can show that it is the muslims who can not be trusted, and they even have a term for their dishonesty... KITHMAN AND TAQIYA

 

[Phoenall]

The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home. Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

"Illegal invasion by Jews"? Well lets see now. Which came first, Solomon's Temple, or the Al Aqsa Mosque?

Stop nonsense just think how establish peace in holy land.

The only way to achieve peace is to eradicate extremist islam, from IS to the stone throwing children of the west bank. Wipe them all out and the world will be peaceful

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Please Montelatici post he explain well.

yes he explains the invasion of Israel and Europe by blood crazed muslims very well indeed. I wonder if he will explain the end times for them just as well ?

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Please see Montelatici post or may be you already have that I think he explain well.

Ho is a LYING POS islamonazi coward, just like you are and will not accept that islam teaches rape, theft, murder and violence.

 

[MJB12741]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

 

[montelatici]

MJB and his excitement at the thought of the massacre Christians and Muslims.

 

[MJB12741]

MJB and his excitement at the thought of the massacre Christians and Muslims.

HUH??? Please explain. 'Atta boy! I love Christians & I said let us hope the Pali's leave Israel some better option than Muslim Arab treatment.

 

[Phoenall]

MJB and his excitement at the thought of the massacre Christians and Muslims.

The only massacres of Christians taking place is that committed by muslims

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before. You don't express the entire context.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.

So are you saying the non native Muslim Palestinians have the rights to attack & kill the indigenous Jewiish Palestinians & claim it is their land/

No the indigenous Palestinian population (Muslim, Druze, Christian and Jewish), has the right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them.

(COMMENT)

Self-defense is a right, it does not mean you can achieve it. It does not mean that some authority is going to hand it to you on a sliver platter. And, it does not mean that their are not limitations to its application. The limits are wide and varied, but do include:

Chapter I --- UN Charter
Article 2(4)

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ​

Chapter VII --- UN Charter
Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.​

A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970
DoP International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (its parent derivative authority) clearly makes it plain that guiding principle concepts include:

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, is not law. It is a non-binding resolution; it is not universally understood, customary or statutory law. I know that there are several resolutions out there, to include A/RES/2649
30 November 1970, A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978, and A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974, all of which contain the same or similar language.

Phrases like "by any means" and "all means necessary" have a consequence involved. The use of force against an Occupying Power is punishable by law (IHL Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention). If the protected persons of the Palestine forge and attack against the Israeli, the are subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

(BOTTOM LINE)

Attacking Israel will have consequences. Arab Palestinians who conduct such activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or in cases where the Hostile Arab Palestinian is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, are NOT performing condoned activities under the DoP and thus, subject to the legal consequences as any criminal. Hostile activities that appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; are subject to such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law.

The Palestinian has no special dispensation to employ jihadist tactics or engage in an armed struggle against the Israeli government.

CONSEQUENCES!

Most Respectfully,
R

It will come as no surprise for you to learn that I disagree with your assertion and interpretation, however I have no intention of derailing and diverting the thread towards yet another interminable discussion on interpretations of international law.

Out of curiousity, however, care to define what you mean by "jihadist tactics"?