Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[Challenger]

As have the Palestinians.

Egyptian, Syrian and, Lebanese squatters and land grabbers are not "Pal'istanians" simply by virtue of Arafat assigning an identity to them.

And Jewish Europeans, Americans, North Africans and Yemenis are not "Israelis" simply by virtue of the Zionist movement assigning an identity to them, either.

Actually, they are. You may wish to understand the criteria that defines statehood for the information.

Nationality is one thing, being an indigenous ethnic group is another. Read Sand's

and

for the information

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just a propaganda mantra to support the Hostile Palestinian Claim that Palestine is from the River to the Sea. Well, its not. Things change. And that claim is not a sufficient "just cause" for a jihad or war.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not answer the questions.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is the definition of indigenous. Your asking for a definition for which I already said does not exist.

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

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

​

That is true. The population of Palestine has been in flux for thousands of years. It has been invaded, conquered and occupied. It was the center of major trade routes. Many people had come and gone.

However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built Palestine. They built the cities, towns, and hundreds of farm villages that produced a surplus of food that was exported to other countries.

These are the people of the place. A place called Palestine whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. These are the people who became citizens of Palestine.

Indigenous? How could you say not?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigration associate with the Balfour Declaration started nearly century ago. At what point are the Jewish people eligible to be called "indigenous" under your criteria. When, in the course of events, the Arab indigenous population ceases to be a population constituent of the region, and are replaced by the new constituent, is the new constituent the indigenous population? (Americans, for just over two hundred years, have controlled about four-fifths of America to date. At what point are the Americans indigenous to America?)

Israel the territory, for whatever reason, is dominated by Israelis. And the Arab, for whatever reason, have vacated the region. This is a scenario that has been played out a hundred times or more throughout the regional history. When do the Israeli become the "indigenous" population?

Of all the Arab Palestinians registered in the UNRWA CERI Database, how many actually lived in the territory now sovereign to Israel? They would have to be at least 67 years old. And how many will be left in 33 more years (100 years after Israeli Independence)? The number grows smaller all the time. Many of the registered refugees have more of a tie to the Refugee Camp than to any claim they might have had in Israel.

Who is indigenous to where?

Most Respectfully,
R

The questions.

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

Good questions. Can occupations ever be considered indigenous?

Could you provide a link with your answer?

(COMMENT)

You still did not answer the questions.

An Occupation Power is "never" the same as the "indigenous population." The "Occupation Power" is the nation that has actually placed the territory under the authority for the hostile army. (Article 42 of the Hague Convention)

Indigenous population can be the Israelis that have establish a recognized state.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what if Israel has political recognition. It still occupies Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Call it what you will. But your protest is too much: There are two competing theories on sovereignty:

Sovereignty: Two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster

International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view (It is the opposite of the constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state. The status of statehood is based on fact, not on individual state discretion.) currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the “constitutive” view (A state is only a state when it is recognized as such and other states have a considerable discretion to recognize or not.). However, if indeed the constitutive view is gaining ground, then its slow and partial re-emergence is forcing us to rethink the nature of the state in international law.
​

It so happens that in the case of the State of Israel, it meets the condition of both the "declarative" and "constitutive" views. "The majority of contemporary scholars and commentators favor this theory."(*)

(*) James L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Humphrey Waldock ed., 6th ed. 1963); Ti-Chiang Chen, The International Law of Recognition: With Special Reference to Practice in the United States (L. C. Green ed., 1951); Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1990); D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (1983).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

There are no "competing" theories. The European Jews went to Palestine intending to remove the Christian and Muslims that were living there and settle the land with Jews from outside Palestine. That's just a plain fact.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

An opposing view.

The Palestinian Government and the individual pro-Palestinian supports seldom stay inside international law. They know that UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts."

Legitimate acts of resistance against an occupier are not necessarily "terrorist" acts; technically they could be classed as acting in self-defence, at least according to various ICJ advisories.

(COMMENT)

First, Legitimate Acts of Resistance do not include the targeting of civilians. (Any number of citations can be brought here.)
Second: The technical answer is found in Article 68 of the Geneva Code. (An offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power are punishable.)
Third: The use of the phrase "not necessarily" is NOT affirmative in either direction (legal/illegal).

The ICJ did not render an opinion on whether the actions of the Palestinians were terrorism. What the court said was that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case. And that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.

This conclusion has been been formally litigated as the ICJ did not examine the facts in their entirety. If it was a open and shut as you suggest it is, then the ICC would not be having such a hard time with its preliminary investigation.

Further, the ICJ made an "assumption." The assumption was that the Armistice Line was not moveable without the consent of the parties to the agreement. Well, normally that would be true. But the Armistice Line was concluded when the parties to the Armistice made signed Treaties of Peace. Thus, there is no Armistice Line. Both the Armistice Agreement contain the legal phrase: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved" That criteria has been met.

There is no agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians that stipulates the boundaries.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

It was 2,500 years only a few minutes ago Phoney!

What's it to be? 2,500 years or 4,500 years?

Just for clarity you understand!

It is hard to keep track when you are just blowing smoke.

It is even harder when you have to LIE about what other people say

It's simply pointing out YOUR lies Phoney...

What's funny is that you then blame others for YOUR lies!

Then produce the posts so we can all laugh at your ineptitude and TROLLING

Oh they are ALL here for everyone to read Phoney, including you!

I am certainly not wasting MY time to prove you write crap all the time...

It's very clear for all to see!

Then produce them, or do you have to alter them first because they prove you to be LYING

 

[Phoenall]

"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"

Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted

While this article is spun to accommodate the Zionist Hasbara version of history, it does vindicate what I've been saying all along; the Arabs who conquered Palestine were a tiny minority of the population and took over the estates left by the Romano-Byzantine aristocracy who preferred to leave rather than convert.

The native population, who were predominantly Orthodox Christian (at least officially), gradually converted to Islam (more as a tax avoidance measure than any forced conversion). Judaism had been persecuted almost by the Romano-Byzantines, long before the Muslims arrived, which is why there was a lot of Jewish support for the Sassanian and later Arab forces who conquered the area.

How do we know when rat boy here is losing the argument, easy he starts pontification about hasbara this and Zionist that in a futile attempt at clouding the issue with his LIES. Still waiting for him to produce the link to one of his C&P's that he altered to include both terms as if they were written by the original author. This is why he refuses to answer many of the questions put to him directly and has to have other morons answer for him.

 

[Phoenall]

There are no "competing" theories. The European Jews went to Palestine intending to remove the Christian and Muslims that were living there and settle the land with Jews from outside Palestine. That's just a plain fact.

Like the catholic Nazis went to Spain, Portugal, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and south America to do the same thing. And succeeded because they turned the countries into Nazis like themselves. So when will you stand by your convidtions and POV and leave the stolen land you "own" and become a stateless person.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

An opposing view.

The Palestinian Government and the individual pro-Palestinian supports seldom stay inside international law. They know that UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts."

Legitimate acts of resistance against an occupier are not necessarily "terrorist" acts; technically they could be classed as acting in self-defence, at least according to various ICJ advisories.

(COMMENT)

First, Legitimate Acts of Resistance do not include the targeting of civilians. (Any number of citations can be brought here.)
Second: The technical answer is found in Article 68 of the Geneva Code. (An offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power are punishable.)
Third: The use of the phrase "not necessarily" is NOT affirmative in either direction (legal/illegal).

The ICJ did not render an opinion on whether the actions of the Palestinians were terrorism. What the court said was that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case. And that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.

This conclusion has been been formally litigated as the ICJ did not examine the facts in their entirety. If it was a open and shut as you suggest it is, then the ICC would not be having such a hard time with its preliminary investigation.

Further, the ICJ made an "assumption." The assumption was that the Armistice Line was not moveable without the consent of the parties to the agreement. Well, normally that would be true. But the Armistice Line was concluded when the parties to the Armistice made signed Treaties of Peace. Thus, there is no Armistice Line. Both the Armistice Agreement contain the legal phrase: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved" That criteria has been met.

There is no agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians that stipulates the boundaries.

Most Respectfully,
R

In actual fact there is no agreement between the Palestinians and Egypt/Jordan either to stipulate any borders. When they were admitted as non voting members of the UN they gave a solemn undertaking to start negotiations on mutually agreed borders with all their neighbours using REs 242 as an example

 

[Phoenall]

As have the Palestinians.

Egyptian, Syrian and, Lebanese squatters and land grabbers are not "Pal'istanians" simply by virtue of Arafat assigning an identity to them.

And Jewish Europeans, Americans, North Africans and Yemenis are not "Israelis" simply by virtue of the Zionist movement assigning an identity to them, either.

Actually, they are. You may wish to understand the criteria that defines statehood for the information.

Nationality is one thing, being an indigenous ethnic group is another. Read Sand's

and

for the information

Since when have works of fiction been of any relevance and a valid source of information. Does this mean I can cite any work of fiction that shows the Palestinians to be thieves and illegal immigrants

 

[MJB12741]

There will never be peace as long as those Zionists in Israel allow the Palestinian squatters to remain in Israel. This entire Zionist agenda of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions has to go.

 

[Phoenall]

There are no "competing" theories. The European Jews went to Palestine intending to remove the Christian and Muslims that were living there and settle the land with Jews from outside Palestine. That's just a plain fact.

Another plain fact is that you are a moron that does not know the first thing about the M.E or the Jews that have lived there for 4,500 years

 

[Humanity]

It is hard to keep track when you are just blowing smoke.

It is even harder when you have to LIE about what other people say

It's simply pointing out YOUR lies Phoney...

What's funny is that you then blame others for YOUR lies!

Then produce the posts so we can all laugh at your ineptitude and TROLLING

Oh they are ALL here for everyone to read Phoney, including you!

I am certainly not wasting MY time to prove you write crap all the time...

It's very clear for all to see!

Then produce them, or do you have to alter them first because they prove you to be LYING

You wrote them...

No need for me to lie Phoney..

Your lies there for all to see... Including you!

Maybe its time to move on from failed neo-marxist to failed zionist and move on...

You can do it... You are used to failing and changing camps!

 

[Hollie]

As have the Palestinians.

Egyptian, Syrian and, Lebanese squatters and land grabbers are not "Pal'istanians" simply by virtue of Arafat assigning an identity to them.

And Jewish Europeans, Americans, North Africans and Yemenis are not "Israelis" simply by virtue of the Zionist movement assigning an identity to them, either.

Actually, they are. You may wish to understand the criteria that defines statehood for the information.

Nationality is one thing, being an indigenous ethnic group is another. Read Sand's

and

for the information

The Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese squatters were not indigenous.

You have a need to call squatters "indigenous" because it appeals to your Joooooooo hatreds. Don't let your emotional attachment to hating Joooooooos blur your ability to make rational assessments.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, Hollie, et al,

The argument that Professor Sands put forth is a good peace of work. that alone doesn't make it correct. Like the Bohr–Einstein debates, both men were geniuses and both men held polar opposite ideas the nature of light, energy and reality regarding the "spooky action at a distance." Both men, experts in their field, postulated their individual ideas; but, only one could be right. In this case, Professor Sands postulates his ideas, and some people use it as evidence that today's Jews are not related to the region which comprises the State of Israel. Of course, contrary to the Sand's postulate, many studies indicate that Jew and Palestinians and Druze are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews are to non-Jewish Europeans or Africans. Having said that, and giving Professor Sands the benefit of the doubt, it is still a red herring reative to the Jewish Migration into the Middle East.

As have the Palestinians.

Egyptian, Syrian and, Lebanese squatters and land grabbers are not "Pal'istanians" simply by virtue of Arafat assigning an identity to them.

And Jewish Europeans, Americans, North Africans and Yemenis are not "Israelis" simply by virtue of the Zionist movement assigning an identity to them, either.

Actually, they are. You may wish to understand the criteria that defines statehood for the information.

Nationality is one thing, being an indigenous ethnic group is another. Read Sand's for the information

(COMMENT)

The issue of the Jewish Migration is not that complicated. Jews and Christians have aways thought that the origins of the Jewish People was traditionally held to be in the Middle East. And today's Jewish people, after 2000+ years of migration out of the Middle East to other parts of the world. Some Jewish groups remained relatively generically isolated while other groups obviously mixed. This relevant application of this would not support the idea of indigenous status in the early 20th Century Middle East Region (Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip). Clearly the indigenous population was the resident Arabs that haunted the region.

The relevance of the genetic identification and relationships is totally unimportant. It does not change the outcome of the 21st Century.

The idea to return to the point of origin dates back before Sultan Bayezid II ordered Admiral Kemal Reis (uncle of the famous Ottoman Admiral and cartographer Piri Reis) to pick-up Jews expelled by European Leaders (Italy, Spain, Portugal) and return them to the Ottoman Empire, many of which return to the Middle East.

With his firman dated April 5th, 1870, the Sultan Abdul Aziz allocated the "Alliance Israelite Universelle" 2600 dunams of land east of Jaffa for the establishment of a school of agriculture and also granted permission for importing all kinds of tools and machinery free of taxes and customs. As Ben Gouriion, said: "I doubt that the Israeli dream would have been realized if the farm school of Mikveh Israel had not existed." Among Jews that served during the reign of Sultan Aziz: The palace intendent Baruh Cohen, Dr. Mordohay Levi in different cities. In the army Admiral Dr. Isaac Pasha Molho, Fr. Menetes Pasa Galimidi, Dr. Isaac Pasa Galimidi and admiral Elias Pasa Cohen. Upon recurrence of blood libel accusations, Sultan Aziz issued the attached firman dated July 11th, 1866 taking the Jews under his protection. Thanks to this firman the Greek Orthodox patriarchate had to issue encyclicals to all churches, forbidding such practices. (SOURCE: From the book: Ottoman Sultans and Their Jewish Subjects. Quincentennial Foundation, Istanbul, Turkey: 1999.)
​

Currently, inside the State of Israel (as border controls are implemented) and the IDF maintain protection over, there are no Arabs-Palestinian under occupation. And after another half a century, there will be no living Arab Palestinian that experienced living in Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Luckily, there is a limited number of Jews worldwide and a far larger number of non-Jews in the region. Demographics are a *****. The Boers made a good decision, the Rhodesians did not.

 

[Phoenall]

It is even harder when you have to LIE about what other people say

It's simply pointing out YOUR lies Phoney...

What's funny is that you then blame others for YOUR lies!

Then produce the posts so we can all laugh at your ineptitude and TROLLING

Oh they are ALL here for everyone to read Phoney, including you!

I am certainly not wasting MY time to prove you write crap all the time...

It's very clear for all to see!

Then produce them, or do you have to alter them first because they prove you to be LYING

You wrote them...

No need for me to lie Phoney..

Your lies there for all to see... Including you!

Maybe its time to move on from failed neo-marxist to failed zionist and move on...

You can do it... You are used to failing and changing camps!

Then produce them or are you afraid that everyone will see how much of a LIAR you are and laugh in your face.

I did not fail I saw the light and realised that neo Marxism was a cancer just like islam, and you have to be hard on a cancer if you want to get rid of it don't you. That is why they operate first to kill the majority of the cancer and then use powerful forces to root out the remaining cells. Just as we have done in the UK with Islamic child rapists and neo Marxist,s

 

[Phoenall]

Luckily, there is a limited number of Jews worldwide and a far larger number of non-Jews in the region. Demographics are a *****. The Boers made a good decision, the Rhodesians did not.

Means nothing as Israel is a legal country that cant change demopgraphics by International law. The UN would be forced by their own charter to wage war on islam if it tried to overrun Israel and take control.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just a propaganda mantra to support the Hostile Palestinian Claim that Palestine is from the River to the Sea. Well, its not. Things change. And that claim is not a sufficient "just cause" for a jihad or war.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not answer the questions.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is the definition of indigenous. Your asking for a definition for which I already said does not exist.

​

That is true. The population of Palestine has been in flux for thousands of years. It has been invaded, conquered and occupied. It was the center of major trade routes. Many people had come and gone.

However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built Palestine. They built the cities, towns, and hundreds of farm villages that produced a surplus of food that was exported to other countries.

These are the people of the place. A place called Palestine whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. These are the people who became citizens of Palestine.

Indigenous? How could you say not?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigration associate with the Balfour Declaration started nearly century ago. At what point are the Jewish people eligible to be called "indigenous" under your criteria. When, in the course of events, the Arab indigenous population ceases to be a population constituent of the region, and are replaced by the new constituent, is the new constituent the indigenous population? (Americans, for just over two hundred years, have controlled about four-fifths of America to date. At what point are the Americans indigenous to America?)

Israel the territory, for whatever reason, is dominated by Israelis. And the Arab, for whatever reason, have vacated the region. This is a scenario that has been played out a hundred times or more throughout the regional history. When do the Israeli become the "indigenous" population?

Of all the Arab Palestinians registered in the UNRWA CERI Database, how many actually lived in the territory now sovereign to Israel? They would have to be at least 67 years old. And how many will be left in 33 more years (100 years after Israeli Independence)? The number grows smaller all the time. Many of the registered refugees have more of a tie to the Refugee Camp than to any claim they might have had in Israel.

Who is indigenous to where?

Most Respectfully,
R

The questions.

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

Good questions. Can occupations ever be considered indigenous?

Could you provide a link with your answer?

(COMMENT)

You still did not answer the questions.

An Occupation Power is "never" the same as the "indigenous population." The "Occupation Power" is the nation that has actually placed the territory under the authority for the hostile army. (Article 42 of the Hague Convention)

Indigenous population can be the Israelis that have establish a recognized state.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what if Israel has political recognition. It still occupies Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Call it what you will. But your protest is too much: There are two competing theories on sovereignty:

Sovereignty: Two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster

International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view (It is the opposite of the constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state. The status of statehood is based on fact, not on individual state discretion.) currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the “constitutive” view (A state is only a state when it is recognized as such and other states have a considerable discretion to recognize or not.). However, if indeed the constitutive view is gaining ground, then its slow and partial re-emergence is forcing us to rethink the nature of the state in international law.
​

It so happens that in the case of the State of Israel, it meets the condition of both the "declarative" and "constitutive" views. "The majority of contemporary scholars and commentators favor this theory."(*)

(*) James L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Humphrey Waldock ed., 6th ed. 1963); Ti-Chiang Chen, The International Law of Recognition: With Special Reference to Practice in the United States (L. C. Green ed., 1951); Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1990); D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (1983).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The declaratory theory is the one favored by international law.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,... ~ Montevideo​

Other principles I will reference is the qualifications of a state: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Popular sovereignty where the people are the sovereigns and the legitimacy of a government is derived from the consent of the people.

The universal rights of a people inside a defined territory: The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

So, how do these principles apply to Israel and Palestine?

All of the territories ceded from Turkish rule were called successor states. Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. The LoN considered Palestine to be a state. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate charter. When Britain left Palestine it called Palestine a legal entity. Palestine would still exist but would not be independent because the administration was being passed to the UNPC. Britain could not and did not change the legal status of Palestine as it had no authority to do so.

What was said about a Jewish state? That a Jewish state would not be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.

At the termination of the Mandate Palestine was still there. There was no Jewish state.

On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency declared Israel's independence inside Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people. It neither defined nor acquired any territory.

Now look at the Palestinian's declaration of independence.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS​

MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948


I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

All 100% legal and in complete compliance with all legal norms and the UN Charter. Even though recognition by other states was not required, five other countries recognized Palestine's independent state.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements recognized the continued existence of Palestine calling the land Palestine and referencing its unchanged international borders. There was no mention of a state called Israel. There was no mention of any land or borders for Israel.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just a propaganda mantra to support the Hostile Palestinian Claim that Palestine is from the River to the Sea. Well, its not. Things change. And that claim is not a sufficient "just cause" for a jihad or war.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not answer the questions.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is the definition of indigenous. Your asking for a definition for which I already said does not exist.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigration associate with the Balfour Declaration started nearly century ago. At what point are the Jewish people eligible to be called "indigenous" under your criteria. When, in the course of events, the Arab indigenous population ceases to be a population constituent of the region, and are replaced by the new constituent, is the new constituent the indigenous population? (Americans, for just over two hundred years, have controlled about four-fifths of America to date. At what point are the Americans indigenous to America?)

Israel the territory, for whatever reason, is dominated by Israelis. And the Arab, for whatever reason, have vacated the region. This is a scenario that has been played out a hundred times or more throughout the regional history. When do the Israeli become the "indigenous" population?

Of all the Arab Palestinians registered in the UNRWA CERI Database, how many actually lived in the territory now sovereign to Israel? They would have to be at least 67 years old. And how many will be left in 33 more years (100 years after Israeli Independence)? The number grows smaller all the time. Many of the registered refugees have more of a tie to the Refugee Camp than to any claim they might have had in Israel.

Who is indigenous to where?

Most Respectfully,
R

The questions.

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

Good questions. Can occupations ever be considered indigenous?

Could you provide a link with your answer?

(COMMENT)

You still did not answer the questions.

An Occupation Power is "never" the same as the "indigenous population." The "Occupation Power" is the nation that has actually placed the territory under the authority for the hostile army. (Article 42 of the Hague Convention)

Indigenous population can be the Israelis that have establish a recognized state.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what if Israel has political recognition. It still occupies Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Call it what you will. But your protest is too much: There are two competing theories on sovereignty:

Sovereignty: Two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster

International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view (It is the opposite of the constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state. The status of statehood is based on fact, not on individual state discretion.) currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the “constitutive” view (A state is only a state when it is recognized as such and other states have a considerable discretion to recognize or not.). However, if indeed the constitutive view is gaining ground, then its slow and partial re-emergence is forcing us to rethink the nature of the state in international law.
​

It so happens that in the case of the State of Israel, it meets the condition of both the "declarative" and "constitutive" views. "The majority of contemporary scholars and commentators favor this theory."(*)

(*) James L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Humphrey Waldock ed., 6th ed. 1963); Ti-Chiang Chen, The International Law of Recognition: With Special Reference to Practice in the United States (L. C. Green ed., 1951); Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1990); D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (1983).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The declaratory theory is the one favored by international law.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,... ~ Montevideo​

Other principles I will reference is the qualifications of a state: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Popular sovereignty where the people are the sovereigns and the legitimacy of a government is derived from the consent of the people.

The universal rights of a people inside a defined territory: The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

So, how do these principles apply to Israel and Palestine?

All of the territories ceded from Turkish rule were called successor states. Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. The LoN considered Palestine to be a state. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate charter. When Britain left Palestine it called Palestine a legal entity. Palestine would still exist but would not be independent because the administration was being passed to the UNPC. Britain could not and did not change the legal status of Palestine as it had no authority to do so.

What was said about a Jewish state? That a Jewish state would not be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.

At the termination of the Mandate Palestine was still there. There was no Jewish state.

On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency declared Israel's independence inside Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people. It neither defined nor acquired any territory.

Now look at the Palestinian's declaration of independence.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS​

MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948


I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

All 100% legal and in complete compliance with all legal norms and the UN Charter. Even though recognition by other states was not required, five other countries recognized Palestine's independent state.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements recognized the continued existence of Palestine calling the land Palestine and referencing its unchanged international borders. There was no mention of a state called Israel. There was no mention of any land or borders for Israel.

Palestinian squatters have been on the land for generations. How much longer will Israel allow these land thieves to remain in Israel?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not properly use any of your presentation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just a propaganda mantra to support the Hostile Palestinian Claim that Palestine is from the River to the Sea. Well, its not. Things change. And that claim is not a sufficient "just cause" for a jihad or war.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not answer the questions.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is the definition of indigenous. Your asking for a definition for which I already said does not exist.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigration associate with the Balfour Declaration started nearly century ago. At what point are the Jewish people eligible to be called "indigenous" under your criteria. When, in the course of events, the Arab indigenous population ceases to be a population constituent of the region, and are replaced by the new constituent, is the new constituent the indigenous population? (Americans, for just over two hundred years, have controlled about four-fifths of America to date. At what point are the Americans indigenous to America?)

Israel the territory, for whatever reason, is dominated by Israelis. And the Arab, for whatever reason, have vacated the region. This is a scenario that has been played out a hundred times or more throughout the regional history. When do the Israeli become the "indigenous" population?

Of all the Arab Palestinians registered in the UNRWA CERI Database, how many actually lived in the territory now sovereign to Israel? They would have to be at least 67 years old. And how many will be left in 33 more years (100 years after Israeli Independence)? The number grows smaller all the time. Many of the registered refugees have more of a tie to the Refugee Camp than to any claim they might have had in Israel.

Who is indigenous to where?

Most Respectfully,
R

The questions.

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

Good questions. Can occupations ever be considered indigenous?

Could you provide a link with your answer?

(COMMENT)

You still did not answer the questions.

An Occupation Power is "never" the same as the "indigenous population." The "Occupation Power" is the nation that has actually placed the territory under the authority for the hostile army. (Article 42 of the Hague Convention)

Indigenous population can be the Israelis that have establish a recognized state.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what if Israel has political recognition. It still occupies Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Call it what you will. But your protest is too much: There are two competing theories on sovereignty:

Sovereignty: Two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster

International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view (It is the opposite of the constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state. The status of statehood is based on fact, not on individual state discretion.) currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the “constitutive” view (A state is only a state when it is recognized as such and other states have a considerable discretion to recognize or not.). However, if indeed the constitutive view is gaining ground, then its slow and partial re-emergence is forcing us to rethink the nature of the state in international law.
​

It so happens that in the case of the State of Israel, it meets the condition of both the "declarative" and "constitutive" views. "The majority of contemporary scholars and commentators favor this theory."(*)

(*) James L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Humphrey Waldock ed., 6th ed. 1963); Ti-Chiang Chen, The International Law of Recognition: With Special Reference to Practice in the United States (L. C. Green ed., 1951); Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1990); D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (1983).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The declaratory theory is the one favored by international law.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,... ~ Montevideo​

Other principles I will reference is the qualifications of a state: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Popular sovereignty where the people are the sovereigns and the legitimacy of a government is derived from the consent of the people.

The universal rights of a people inside a defined territory: The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

So, how do these principles apply to Israel and Palestine?

All of the territories ceded from Turkish rule were called successor states. Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. The LoN considered Palestine to be a state. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate charter. When Britain left Palestine it called Palestine a legal entity. Palestine would still exist but would not be independent because the administration was being passed to the UNPC. Britain could not and did not change the legal status of Palestine as it had no authority to do so.

What was said about a Jewish state? That a Jewish state would not be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.

At the termination of the Mandate Palestine was still there. There was no Jewish state.

On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency declared Israel's independence inside Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people. It neither defined nor acquired any territory.

Now look at the Palestinian's declaration of independence.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS​

MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948


I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

All 100% legal and in complete compliance with all legal norms and the UN Charter. Even though recognition by other states was not required, five other countries recognized Palestine's independent state.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements recognized the continued existence of Palestine calling the land Palestine and referencing its unchanged international borders. There was no mention of a state called Israel. There was no mention of any land or borders for Israel.

(COMMENT)

The Montevideo Convention (first presentation) did not apply because the declaration was made AFTER the State of Israel was already established.

The Jewish National Council consisting of members of elected representatives of the Jewish Bodies, was the provisional government that declared independence.

The Jewish National Council DID exercise their right to self-determination; but with external interference from the Arab League defying the resolution of the General Assembly and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.

A country does not confer sovereignty or independence. A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography. The political entity was the establishment of Mandatory as the government. The Mandate said: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government."

The Armistice of Mudros, The Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, all agree that the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Government did have the intent and purpose to "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 parties concerned being the Allied Powers, not some nonexistent government of the Arabs. By the time the Treaty of Lausanne was signed (JULY 24, 1923), the Mandate and Civil Administration over the territory had been established by the Allied Powers.

The Jewish National Council DID make application to the 1948 successor government, the UN Palestine Commission, IAW with the Steps Preparatory to Independence of the Resolution.

You can believe what you will, the All Palestine Government did not act until three months after the Jewish National Council. Without regard to you interpretation of events, the debate over the territorials were not even issue until the application for admission was considered.

Finally, the Armistice Agreements were made between "ISRAEL" and the four adjacent Arab League nations. No arrangement was made between "ISRAEL" and any entity established by the All Palestine Government.

"He Who Can Destroy a Thing, Controls a Thing" (A quote from DUNE Frank Herbert) By Liberty1955 | Watertown, New York iCNN Report
It is a very applicable quote here and can be directly applied to the All Palestine Government. The APG was dissolved by the Egyptian Government in 1959. The Egypt (your foreign government) was the proponent for the APG. Where as the UN admitted Israel to membership in the United Nations in 1949.

(REALITY)

No matter what argument you present, the reality is that you can look at any contemporary Map and see that there is a physical manifestation called Israel. You can actually travel by air, sea or land, to the border of Israel, manned by Israel Border Police. You can check the record, there is a Resolution 273 (III) Titled the Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations. And today you can see that there are actually treaties that replaced two of the four Armistice Agreements with Israel and established International Boundaries between the parties.

It is what it is.

I see nothing of a documented or physical nature that establishes or recognizes the State of Palestine until 1988. And that is NOT full recognition of a country that can stand alone. And I see a difference in what one Palestinian Faction may believe over another. Remember, the Western Border of the West Bank is not a permanent border, nor is it an Armistice Line.

Most Respectfully,
R