Invention of the 'Palestinian' People

[montelatici]

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

 

[Shusha]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

 

[Hollie]

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.

A/364 of 3 September 1947

Well, we know from your link:

(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." (article 2) considered together with the obligation to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions" arid "encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" (article 6).


So, as we see, the Mandate provided for establishment of the Jewish National Home and immigration of the Jewish people was intended to facilitate that.

Your link actually identifies the intent of the mandate which was, in part, an intent toward facilitation of Jews reclaiming their ancestral homeland after the Islamist Entity™ had all but purged existence of the Jewish heritage from the area.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

 

[Hollie]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

The Arabs-Moslems did not have a country. There was never a "country of Pal'istan".

Do you have any clue that your argument for a mythical "country of Pal'istan" is utter nonsense?

 

[Phoenall]

There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine before the European Zionists arrived. Even after decades of invasion Jews represented no more than 10% of the population when the Mandate was established.

"The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine....."

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)


It does not matter whether the land was sovereign or not. The Covenant of the LON, article 22, stated clearly that the inhabitants were to be tutored towards self-determination. Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

And again you manipulate the covenant by omission of the facts in the next sentence

"The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.



Who was it that declined the offer of tutelage and decided that violence was the only way to achieve their aims ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

The Arabs-Moslems did not have a country. There was never a "country of Pal'istan".

Do you have any clue that your argument for a mythical "country of Pal'istan" is utter nonsense?

Standard Israeli bullshit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine before the European Zionists arrived. Even after decades of invasion Jews represented no more than 10% of the population when the Mandate was established.

"The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine....."

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)


It does not matter whether the land was sovereign or not. The Covenant of the LON, article 22, stated clearly that the inhabitants were to be tutored towards self-determination. Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

And again you manipulate the covenant by omission of the facts in the next sentence

"The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.



Who was it that declined the offer of tutelage and decided that violence was the only way to achieve their aims ?

You are misreading the Covenant.

 

[Phoenall]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

BULLSHIT

They declined everything and so lost the works. The much posted article 22 of the LoN covenant says it all

"The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.



You do know what this means dont you ?

 

[Phoenall]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

The Arabs-Moslems did not have a country. There was never a "country of Pal'istan".

Do you have any clue that your argument for a mythical "country of Pal'istan" is utter nonsense?

Standard Israeli bullshit.

Instead of ducking the facts why dont you provide the evidence that there was a country of palestine prior to 1988

 

[Phoenall]

There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine before the European Zionists arrived. Even after decades of invasion Jews represented no more than 10% of the population when the Mandate was established.

"The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine....."

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)


It does not matter whether the land was sovereign or not. The Covenant of the LON, article 22, stated clearly that the inhabitants were to be tutored towards self-determination. Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

And again you manipulate the covenant by omission of the facts in the next sentence

"The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.



Who was it that declined the offer of tutelage and decided that violence was the only way to achieve their aims ?

You are misreading the Covenant.

I DOUBT THAT VERY MUCH AS THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS FOR ANYONE WITH TWO BRAIN CELLS.

IT IS YOU THAT MISREADS EVERY TREATY, INTERNATIONAL LAW, RESOLUTION, COVENANT AND CHARTER BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR STANCE IS ON VERY THIN ICE

 

[Phoenall]

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.

A/364 of 3 September 1947

Do you even know what SUI GENERIS means in this context ?


And do you know what the words "may well be said" mean in this context ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

The Arabs-Moslems did not have a country. There was never a "country of Pal'istan".

Do you have any clue that your argument for a mythical "country of Pal'istan" is utter nonsense?

Standard Israeli bullshit.

Instead of ducking the facts why dont you provide the evidence that there was a country of palestine prior to 1988

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

Opinions of officials and legal scholars

For John Quigley Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.[126] Noting that Palestine under the Mandate entered into bilateral treaties, including one with Great Britain, the Mandatory power, he cites this as an example of its "sovereignty" at that time. He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[86]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

 

[Hollie]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

The Arabs-Moslems did not have a country. There was never a "country of Pal'istan".

Do you have any clue that your argument for a mythical "country of Pal'istan" is utter nonsense?

Standard Israeli bullshit.

Not at all. Let's just offer a reminder that it is you who has entered a public forum and continually represents that some imagined "country of Pal'istan" existed at some time in the past. Yet, you offer absolutely nothing to support that claim. Your scary fantasy world exists only in your narrow orbit and yet you continue to spew your buffoonish insistence that your fantasies are true.

 

[montelatici]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

No, the British refused to recognize the leadership of the Palestinians. As stated in formal correspondence.

"2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine"

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

The British refused to recognize the Palestinians because recognizing them would have made it impossible for the British to establish the Zionist colony in Palestine. The Palestinians wanted a one man, one vote constitution, and the British wanted to give the Zionist minority the power to rule over the Christians and Muslims.

"5. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude (the attitude being one man, one vote ed.) of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

 

[Shusha]

Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

Um. You live in the US, right?

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

The Arabs-Moslems did not have a country. There was never a "country of Pal'istan".

Do you have any clue that your argument for a mythical "country of Pal'istan" is utter nonsense?

Standard Israeli bullshit.

Instead of ducking the facts why dont you provide the evidence that there was a country of palestine prior to 1988

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

Opinions of officials and legal scholars

For John Quigley Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.[126] Noting that Palestine under the Mandate entered into bilateral treaties, including one with Great Britain, the Mandatory power, he cites this as an example of its "sovereignty" at that time. He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[86]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

This islamonazi propaganda piece again


You are really desperate now as you are using an international treaty that dealt with the former Ottoman empire debts being paid by the newly formed nations. It passed the onus for this to the mandatory who were the UK.

It is alright making a claim that " palestine entered into bilateral treaties" it is another to produce these treaties to see who signed for palestine in these matters. If as I suspect it was Great Britain as mandatory then you have shot yourself in the foot again

 

[Phoenall]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

No, the British refused to recognize the leadership of the Palestinians. As stated in formal correspondence.

"2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine"

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

The British refused to recognize the Palestinians because recognizing them would have made it impossible for the British to establish the Zionist colony in Palestine. The Palestinians wanted a one man, one vote constitution, and the British wanted to give the Zionist minority the power to rule over the Christians and Muslims.

"5. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude (the attitude being one man, one vote ed.) of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Because the arab muslims declined to accept that LoN as Sovereign and legally entitled to dispose of the land as they saw fit under international law extant at that time

 

[montelatici]

Clearly, the British neglected to provide tutelage to 90% of the inhabitants and provided it to recent arrivals from Europe and non-inhabitants still in Europe.

Actually, the Arab inhabitants rejected the offered tutelage because they were unable to accept the parameters of the tutelage. They still can't accept those parameters, which is why they still don't have a nation.

Indeed, they did not accept the colonization of their country. Of course no other people in the world would accept colonization either so I don't understand why the Palestinians are singled out.

The Arabs-Moslems did not have a country. There was never a "country of Pal'istan".

Do you have any clue that your argument for a mythical "country of Pal'istan" is utter nonsense?

The Palestinians certainly had a country, it was called Palestine, though it wasn't an independent nation. Just as the the Kurds have a country called Kurdistan, though also not an independent nation.

Whether it was a sovereign state or not makes little difference. The European Zionists never had a state either.

 

[teddyearp]

Like the Palestinians weren't calling themselves the People of Palestine in 1922. You are so full of shit. You only read anti-Palestinian propaganda so you always post bullshit lies. Notice that the Jews were the "Zionist Organisation" and the Muslims and Christians were the Arab People of Palestine.

I hate quoting large posts, so I cut them down to a readable length. You, by your own admission, actually agree with me. You state above that the peoples who would decades later take up calling themselves 'Palestinians' were early on called the Arab People of Palestine. And you have no idea whatsoever what I read. You only assume. Believe it or not, I do read articles from the pro-Palestinian side. Your article that you linked at the very top states that it is "as-is" and not an official document.

But, again, if it makes you feel smarter saying that I am "so full of shit" and that I post "bullshit lies" then whatever. I am done trying to unravel the pretzel of your truths.