Israel does not target civilians?

[Phoenall]

...they look uniformed to me...

Correct...

Your Palestinians are, indeed, 'uniform'...

Always a good day to kill a few dozen or a few score of these slime-balls...

Of course, civilians are going to be hurt and killed, when the IDF flattens an area that these scumbags are haunting...

Purely collateral and unintentional...

Nothing deliberate about attacking war-assets and combatants, and thereby generating unintended civilian casualties...

Don't want the civilian casualties?

Move the war-assets...

Oh... and... move the Neanderthal Nazi wannabes like these panty-waists...

Wrong.... When Jews pushed Palestinian into camps to grab their country, then jews can enter in these camps as well to avoid civilian deaths. But mostly jew soldiers hired from overseas, and they don't want dual fight because they scare and they prefer to kill innocent civilian.

The camps were made by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon in 1948. In 1967 the Jews liberated the camps in parts of Egypt and Jordan. In 1970 the forces of Jordan fired on unarmed Palestinian civilians killing as many as 50,000 who were behind barbed wire fences. Not a Jew in sight just two different factions of Palestinians. So as you see historical evidence shows that it is Palestinians that target civilians not Israel

 

[Phoenall]

Hamas usage of human shields is a well established and proven fact. Their cowardice knows no bounds.

And you know the facts but don't have enough courage to accept the facts as it all jews nature.

The facts are that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields. Their fighters do not wear uniforms for this very purpose. They're savages and cowards. But then again, that's what all Islamists are.

Not quite the spit and polish of the Brigade of Guards, or the USMC perhaps, but they look uniformed to me...

Thats a wonderful Islamic terrorist fashion show (for Islamic terrorist cowards), but such silly cutting and pasting serves only to reinforce a lot of negative stereotypes about you Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers.

Then why not Israel army enter into these camps and catch freedom fighter instead kill innocent civilian because jew army don't want dual fight because they scare.

Because that would be against international law as they have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. That is where the camps are not in palestine

 

[Phoenall]

Hamas does not hide "behind the skirts of it woamen and children". It is Zionist propaganda. The cowards are the Israelis, that intentional bomb residential apartment buildings housing women and children or schools, killing women and children by the thousands. Israel intentionally bombs civilians no amount of projection and propaganda mongering can change the facts as presented by the UN or various NGOs and human rights organizations.

"Well, you know, despite the Israeli ambassador’s claim that Israel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for its extraordinary restraint and its extraordinary care to spare civilian lives, Human Rights Watch has seen from the ground, based on our investigations in Gaza, that that’s anything but the case. And no matter how many times the Israeli military spokesmen scream, "Human shields! Human shields!" most of the people being killed in Gaza are being killed because Israel is paying insufficient care to saving civilian lives. There’s been case after case in which Israel has used the wrong weaponry or has shot at people with many civilians around. And these, in our view, are war crimes."

Kenneth Roth

Former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Executive Director of HRW. Kenneth Roth is Jewish, by the way.

Hamas usage of human shields is a well established and proven fact. Their cowardice knows no bounds.

And you know the facts but don't have enough courage to accept the facts as it all jews nature.

The facts are that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields. Their fighters do not wear uniforms for this very purpose. They're savages and cowards. But then again, that's what all Islamists are.

Not quite the spit and polish of the Brigade of Guards, or the USMC perhaps, but they look uniformed to me...

But they can be in Lebanon or in Jordon not in Gaza. Still sound like empty hand as compare to modern jews army. To me if Israelis are not terrorist then they should enter in Gaza and the freedom fighter instead kill civilian cowardly. But hired army from overseas scared to fight face to face. And preferred to kill innocent civilian.

LIAR

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

And therein rests the backbone of the problem.

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open, given that Palestinians were still running attacks. The Airspace was under Israeli control simply because it was beyond the capability of the Palestinians given the dynamics of a 21st Century Air Traffic Control Zone and Air Defense Zone requires.

In a rough, truncated thumbnail view, this is how the externals saw the Palestinians as we approached the 21st Century:

The Palestinians were developing a network of terrorist organizations. The oldest of the groups is the PLO, stared in 1964. The PLO set the primer for violence in the movements to follow. Immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded; and the 1968 splinter group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). In 1969, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) was founded when it split from the PFLP. In 1979, Islamic fundamentals form a the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and in 1988 the Islamic Resistance Movement emerged. In the year 2000, the PLO formed a series of Fatah related terrorist cells operating against Israeli military and civilian settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem; known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; in the same year the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) emerged and became active in the Gaza Strip.

The most significant of the groups where, of course, the PLO and the PFLP.

The PLO set the general content that the long-term organization needed.

• Fatah: The political face as a Palestinian political party on matters of national liberation.
• Tanzim: A specialized Militia for Fatah; to offset the Palestinian Islamism.
• Force 17: Was a failed attempt to establish an Intelligence Service for Fatah.
• Abu Nidal: A strong-armed terrorist set of cells that splintered off of Fatah.

The PFLP was/is a bit more cerebral. It was violence with an agenda.

It promoted a "People's War." (From 1968 to 1984, under the leadership of George Habash, it was the most violent and active of the Palestinian terrorist groups.)

• The purpose of the war was to FORCE a "Peaceful Solution."
• The "Revolutionary Theory" --- Palestinian National Movement; destroying Israel outright. (No two-state solution.)
• The Revolution should include the reformation of Jordan. (The PFLP has a Jordanian Branch.)

All this goes to establish a pattern of criminal behavior, that the Hostile Arab Palestinian rejects as terrorism because they promote themselves as "freedom Fights." The general HoAP rejects the notion that: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. The HoAP see there cause as an exception. They have openly rejected the concept that: All disputes, including their dispute, should be addressed by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

THUS, this establishes the reasoning for the continuation of the HoAP containment (not occupation) in the territories. Let loose, the International Community would be libel for the death and destruction that the HoAP would visit upon the region; endangering the peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open,...​

Load of crap, Rocco.

Relevant info @ 9:10

Once again Islamic propaganda that has never been substantiated from another source.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Oh, your just trying to draw sympathy with incomplete or disinformation.

Israel never released control of any border, air space or territorial sea of Gaza. Furthermore, Israel maintained "no-go" areas throughout Gaza after the settlers were removed.

There has never been a time when Gaza was not under a de-facto blockade by Israel.

(COMMENT)

Let's discuss the easy one first. The Naval Blockade:

As you can see, the naval blockade did not start until 5pm on 3 JAN 09. That is 3 years after the disengagement from Gaza --- OR --- 7316 Since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, which ever way you prefer to look at it. The blockade was a response to the security problem demonstrated by the Palestinians.

The airspace is another issue. The Palestinians have no approved international airport, control tower, or control zone capable RADAR or the HF/VHF communications to effect control. The Yasser Arafat International Airport and the Air Strip at Gush Katif, are currently not operating. Since the Gaza Strip has no law enforcement authority that is internationally accredited, There is no reason to believe that In 2000, a number of decisions were made, fearing that such airports would become ports of entry for arms and Palestinian militants living abroad, and hostile movements of threat No-Fly personalities. After 9/11, terrorist weaponization of commercial airlines became and issue. Given the sheer number of terrorist organizations and personalities in the Territories, the likelihood that any airport certification or airline accreditation would be considered. Similarly, the Atarot Airport has been closed to civilian traffic since the breakout of the Second Intifada in 2001. There is no Palestinian air control.

The borders are what they are. This border arrangement is the very same for any other country. While the Palestinian side of the border will permit travel through, the Israeli and Egyptians control entry. This not against any law. And it certainly does not violate the UN Charter, since it does not interfere in domestic matters.

The tightening of containment is simply a reasonable and prudent measure to protect the safety of innocent civilians outside Palestinian Sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

And therein rests the backbone of the problem.

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open, given that Palestinians were still running attacks. The Airspace was under Israeli control simply because it was beyond the capability of the Palestinians given the dynamics of a 21st Century Air Traffic Control Zone and Air Defense Zone requires.

In a rough, truncated thumbnail view, this is how the externals saw the Palestinians as we approached the 21st Century:

The Palestinians were developing a network of terrorist organizations. The oldest of the groups is the PLO, stared in 1964. The PLO set the primer for violence in the movements to follow. Immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded; and the 1968 splinter group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). In 1969, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) was founded when it split from the PFLP. In 1979, Islamic fundamentals form a the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and in 1988 the Islamic Resistance Movement emerged. In the year 2000, the PLO formed a series of Fatah related terrorist cells operating against Israeli military and civilian settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem; known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; in the same year the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) emerged and became active in the Gaza Strip.

The most significant of the groups where, of course, the PLO and the PFLP.

The PLO set the general content that the long-term organization needed.

• Fatah: The political face as a Palestinian political party on matters of national liberation.
• Tanzim: A specialized Militia for Fatah; to offset the Palestinian Islamism.
• Force 17: Was a failed attempt to establish an Intelligence Service for Fatah.
• Abu Nidal: A strong-armed terrorist set of cells that splintered off of Fatah.

The PFLP was/is a bit more cerebral. It was violence with an agenda.

It promoted a "People's War." (From 1968 to 1984, under the leadership of George Habash, it was the most violent and active of the Palestinian terrorist groups.)

• The purpose of the war was to FORCE a "Peaceful Solution."
• The "Revolutionary Theory" --- Palestinian National Movement; destroying Israel outright. (No two-state solution.)
• The Revolution should include the reformation of Jordan. (The PFLP has a Jordanian Branch.)

All this goes to establish a pattern of criminal behavior, that the Hostile Arab Palestinian rejects as terrorism because they promote themselves as "freedom Fights." The general HoAP rejects the notion that: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. The HoAP see there cause as an exception. They have openly rejected the concept that: All disputes, including their dispute, should be addressed by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

THUS, this establishes the reasoning for the continuation of the HoAP containment (not occupation) in the territories. Let loose, the International Community would be libel for the death and destruction that the HoAP would visit upon the region; endangering the peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open,...​

Load of crap, Rocco.

Relevant info @ 9:10

Mullah TV?

Don't embarrass yourself with such tripe. You know with certainty that anything coming out of the Iranian Mullocracy is going to have a predetermined agenda.

 

[montelatici]

Israel never ceased to control access to Gaza territorial waters.
Israel never ceased to control access to Palestinian air space.
This combined with control of Gaza land borders with third countries (through agreements and/or threats of aid elimination) makes it a fact that a de facto blockade has always been in place.

The Palestinians have every right to use any means to cause a lifting of the blockade.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

And therein rests the backbone of the problem.

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open, given that Palestinians were still running attacks. The Airspace was under Israeli control simply because it was beyond the capability of the Palestinians given the dynamics of a 21st Century Air Traffic Control Zone and Air Defense Zone requires.

In a rough, truncated thumbnail view, this is how the externals saw the Palestinians as we approached the 21st Century:

The Palestinians were developing a network of terrorist organizations. The oldest of the groups is the PLO, stared in 1964. The PLO set the primer for violence in the movements to follow. Immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded; and the 1968 splinter group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). In 1969, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) was founded when it split from the PFLP. In 1979, Islamic fundamentals form a the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and in 1988 the Islamic Resistance Movement emerged. In the year 2000, the PLO formed a series of Fatah related terrorist cells operating against Israeli military and civilian settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem; known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; in the same year the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) emerged and became active in the Gaza Strip.

The most significant of the groups where, of course, the PLO and the PFLP.

The PLO set the general content that the long-term organization needed.

• Fatah: The political face as a Palestinian political party on matters of national liberation.
• Tanzim: A specialized Militia for Fatah; to offset the Palestinian Islamism.
• Force 17: Was a failed attempt to establish an Intelligence Service for Fatah.
• Abu Nidal: A strong-armed terrorist set of cells that splintered off of Fatah.

The PFLP was/is a bit more cerebral. It was violence with an agenda.

It promoted a "People's War." (From 1968 to 1984, under the leadership of George Habash, it was the most violent and active of the Palestinian terrorist groups.)

• The purpose of the war was to FORCE a "Peaceful Solution."
• The "Revolutionary Theory" --- Palestinian National Movement; destroying Israel outright. (No two-state solution.)
• The Revolution should include the reformation of Jordan. (The PFLP has a Jordanian Branch.)

All this goes to establish a pattern of criminal behavior, that the Hostile Arab Palestinian rejects as terrorism because they promote themselves as "freedom Fights." The general HoAP rejects the notion that: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. The HoAP see there cause as an exception. They have openly rejected the concept that: All disputes, including their dispute, should be addressed by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

THUS, this establishes the reasoning for the continuation of the HoAP containment (not occupation) in the territories. Let loose, the International Community would be libel for the death and destruction that the HoAP would visit upon the region; endangering the peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open,...​

Load of crap, Rocco.

Relevant info @ 9:10

Once again Islamic propaganda that has never been substantiated from another source.

Laila El Haddad does not do Islamic propaganda.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

And therein rests the backbone of the problem.

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open, given that Palestinians were still running attacks. The Airspace was under Israeli control simply because it was beyond the capability of the Palestinians given the dynamics of a 21st Century Air Traffic Control Zone and Air Defense Zone requires.

In a rough, truncated thumbnail view, this is how the externals saw the Palestinians as we approached the 21st Century:

The Palestinians were developing a network of terrorist organizations. The oldest of the groups is the PLO, stared in 1964. The PLO set the primer for violence in the movements to follow. Immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded; and the 1968 splinter group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). In 1969, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) was founded when it split from the PFLP. In 1979, Islamic fundamentals form a the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and in 1988 the Islamic Resistance Movement emerged. In the year 2000, the PLO formed a series of Fatah related terrorist cells operating against Israeli military and civilian settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem; known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; in the same year the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) emerged and became active in the Gaza Strip.

The most significant of the groups where, of course, the PLO and the PFLP.

The PLO set the general content that the long-term organization needed.

• Fatah: The political face as a Palestinian political party on matters of national liberation.
• Tanzim: A specialized Militia for Fatah; to offset the Palestinian Islamism.
• Force 17: Was a failed attempt to establish an Intelligence Service for Fatah.
• Abu Nidal: A strong-armed terrorist set of cells that splintered off of Fatah.

The PFLP was/is a bit more cerebral. It was violence with an agenda.

It promoted a "People's War." (From 1968 to 1984, under the leadership of George Habash, it was the most violent and active of the Palestinian terrorist groups.)

• The purpose of the war was to FORCE a "Peaceful Solution."
• The "Revolutionary Theory" --- Palestinian National Movement; destroying Israel outright. (No two-state solution.)
• The Revolution should include the reformation of Jordan. (The PFLP has a Jordanian Branch.)

All this goes to establish a pattern of criminal behavior, that the Hostile Arab Palestinian rejects as terrorism because they promote themselves as "freedom Fights." The general HoAP rejects the notion that: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. The HoAP see there cause as an exception. They have openly rejected the concept that: All disputes, including their dispute, should be addressed by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

THUS, this establishes the reasoning for the continuation of the HoAP containment (not occupation) in the territories. Let loose, the International Community would be libel for the death and destruction that the HoAP would visit upon the region; endangering the peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open,...​

Load of crap, Rocco.

Relevant info @ 9:10

Mullah TV?

Don't embarrass yourself with such tripe. You know with certainty that anything coming out of the Iranian Mullocracy is going to have a predetermined agenda.

Like Iran is going to tell Laila El Haddad what to say.

Not!

 

[RoccoR]

"montelatici, et al,

I just finished reading this 2009 Report: Children and armed conflict A/63/785-S/2009/158 26 March 2009

Rehmani, et al,

Again, Israeli's do not target civilians (ever). It can sometimes be the case that civilians are casualties do to proximity of military targets; but Israel does not target civilians.

Well then enter into camps and fight against freedom fighter don'e kill innocent people. But they can not they are scared. Because hired soldiers not paid good enough to sacrifice thier lives for illegal invasion.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I totally understand this. BUT, ---- remember that no Israeli entangled, relegated or incarcerated any Arab Palestinians into a UNRWA Refugee Camps. Ever single Refugee Camp in the West Bank and Gaza Strip emerged under total Arab Administration: All of them under either Egyptian Rule or Jordanian Rule between 1949 and 1953; except for two: The first Camp in 1948 and the last camp in 1965. Essentially the same can be said for the Refugee Camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course Israel targets civilians, it has been known for quite some time.

"GENEVA, March 23 United Nations investigators said on Monday Israel violated a range of human rights during its invasion of Gaza, including targeting civilians and using a child as a human shield."

U.N. reports say Israel targeted civilians in Gaza

Of course the Israelis drove the Palestinians to refugee camps, they expelled them from their lands in the illegally established Jewish partition of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There were 19 other countries mentioned in this report. This media report chose to focus on Israel. What the report actually said was:

85. Four Israeli children were killed by a Palestinian gunman in an attack on a Jewish seminary in West Jerusalem. In addition, 15 Israeli children were injured, mainly as a result of rockets fired from the Gaza Strip towards Israel and stone throwing.

86. While there have been reported incidents of children being trained and/or used by Palestinian militant groups in Gaza, community members are reluctant to provide
information on cases of children used by armed forces or armed groups for fear of reprisals. Significant progress has been made towards the implementation of an informal monitoring system on child rights violations.

87. There are concerns that Hamas reportedly used children as shields and may have used schools and hospitals or areas in their proximity to launch rockets into Israel during the December 2008 and January 2009 hostilities. These concerns must be further investigated.

88. On 15 January, in Tal al-Hawa, south-west of Gaza City, an 11-year-old boy was made to accompany IDF for a number of hours during a period of intense
operations. As the soldiers entered the Palestinian Red Crescent Society building, the boy was made to enter first, in front of the soldiers. While moving through the
town the boy was made to walk in front of the group, even when the IDF soldiers met with resistance and were fired upon. On arrival at Al-Quds Hospital, the boy
remained in front of the soldiers, but then was subsequently released. This appears to be in direct contravention of a 2005 Israeli High Court ruling on the illegality of
the use of human shields.

I'm not sure who wrote this report, but Paragraph 88 gave me a chuckle. Here is what a Prisoner Escort Instructor says:

(Police One) Stay close to the prisoner. Remember to walk behind the prisoner and adopt a “hands on” approach to escorting a prisoner in order to avoid attempts by the prisoner to assault you, flee from you, or fall down (which can lead to injuries to the prisoner and a “beef” for you).

As I grew in the rank and rose to the rank of superior police officer (SPO), grew into management rank, even when when I served the Force as an instructor in the Police College, I always tell my students and my colleagues that on no account should they be in front of a prisoner. In fact, I tell every police officer that they should NEVER also be beside a prisoner because a strong and stubborn prisoner can push away a police officer who is escorting him side by side, and escape.

I think that anyone who has ever made an arrest knows that the prisoner always walks in front, until you decide to release.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

What can I say?

Israel never ceased to control access to Gaza territorial waters.
Israel never ceased to control access to Palestinian air space.
This combined with control of Gaza land borders with third countries (through agreements and/or threats of aid elimination) makes it a fact that a de facto blockade has always been in place.

The Palestinians have every right to use any means to cause a lifting of the blockade.

(COMMENT)

The blockade did not start until 2009.

The Control Tower, RADAR and runway was not destroyed until 2000.

Borders for every nation are a point of optional control.

You simply cannot change the history or the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Oh but it did. In legal parlance the "last word" is the governing word.

Rehmani, et al,

I agree with you. You cannot change history.

Look jew, you can not change many millennium old indigenous palestinian rights because of falls propaganda.

(OBSERVATION)

For nearly 800 years, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was the sovereign power over the territory in question. The sovereign authority actually ended in 1918 with the Armistice of Mudros (Article 16). Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres, also was just a clear; But then again, the Treaty of Lausanne addressed the final say:

The Armistice of Mudros, which was concluded on October 30, 1918
16. Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.

ARTICLE 132, Treaty of Sevres
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.

Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne:
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 neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

(COMMENT)

Now please notice that the Lausanne say two very important things:

• Turkey renounces all rights and title ---
• Turkey recognized by Treaty, that the future of these territories are being settled by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty).

There can be no objection that the Allied Powers, on the effective date of the Treaty (which comes after the LoN Covenant), has the necessary authority to handle the territories any way it wanted.

You cannot change this history either. The territory was surrendered to the Allied Powers; and not to the Arabs of the Palestine; no matter what the Covenant said. The Covenant was written in 1919 and has no reach into (legal effect upon) a treaty written in 1924, by the same authors.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne does not supersede The Covenant of the League of Nations, nor is it in conflict. The Covenant regulates how the Allied Powers, members of the League of Nations, agreed to administer the former Turkish territories.

Stop being silly.

(COMMENT)

How the Allied Powers decided is written in the Order in Council of the League, and the Mandate. There is nothing in the Covenant that "SPECIFICALLY" addresses either an Allied Power, future treaties, or Palestine in particular. The Covenant says "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire," --- the phrase "certain communities" does not mean (necessarily) all communities. It merely implies more than one. And the Independence of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq would fully that requirement.

In fact, the Covenant sets no deadlines, and the Covenant only uses the words "independence" (Art 10) and "Sovereignty" (Art 22(1)) once. And both causes it applies to a party or parties other than those of Palestine. And the Covenant absolutely does not promise any country "sovereignty" or "independence." The phrase says "stand alone;" --- "as they are able to stand alone."

The problem with the Hostile Arab Palestinian is that they always wanted to decide in a Trial by Combat. And when defeated, they whine about how poorly they were treated. When it was more accurate to speak of it in terms of how arrogant they were.

Rewrite history all you want. But it is not likely that you will achieve the desired results.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

1. Israel has always controlled air space, territorial sea and land borders of Gaza. Gaza has always been blockaded either de jure or de facto.
2. Israel controlled flight plans into and out of the airport.
3. Israel/U.S. insistence that Egypt participate in the blockade or lose U.S. military aid completes the de facto blockade.
4. Sovereignty which was to accrue to the inhabitants of Palestine when the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed was transferred to European colonists in 1948 instead. Of course you can change sovereignty, even if illegally.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Oh but it did. In legal parlance the "last word" is the governing word.

Rehmani, et al,

I agree with you. You cannot change history.

Look jew, you can not change many millennium old indigenous palestinian rights because of falls propaganda.

(OBSERVATION)

For nearly 800 years, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was the sovereign power over the territory in question. The sovereign authority actually ended in 1918 with the Armistice of Mudros (Article 16). Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres, also was just a clear; But then again, the Treaty of Lausanne addressed the final say:

The Armistice of Mudros, which was concluded on October 30, 1918
16. Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.

ARTICLE 132, Treaty of Sevres
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.

Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne:
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 neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

(COMMENT)

Now please notice that the Lausanne say two very important things:

• Turkey renounces all rights and title ---
• Turkey recognized by Treaty, that the future of these territories are being settled by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty).

There can be no objection that the Allied Powers, on the effective date of the Treaty (which comes after the LoN Covenant), has the necessary authority to handle the territories any way it wanted.

You cannot change this history either. The territory was surrendered to the Allied Powers; and not to the Arabs of the Palestine; no matter what the Covenant said. The Covenant was written in 1919 and has no reach into (legal effect upon) a treaty written in 1924, by the same authors.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne does not supersede The Covenant of the League of Nations, nor is it in conflict. The Covenant regulates how the Allied Powers, members of the League of Nations, agreed to administer the former Turkish territories.

Stop being silly.

(COMMENT)

How the Allied Powers decided is written in the Order in Council of the League, and the Mandate. There is nothing in the Covenant that "SPECIFICALLY" addresses either an Allied Power, future treaties, or Palestine in particular. The Covenant says "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire," --- the phrase "certain communities" does not mean (necessarily) all communities. It merely implies more than one. And the Independence of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq would fully that requirement.

In fact, the Covenant sets no deadlines, and the Covenant only uses the words "independence" (Art 10) and "Sovereignty" (Art 22(1)) once. And both causes it applies to a party or parties other than those of Palestine. And the Covenant absolutely does not promise any country "sovereignty" or "independence." The phrase says "stand alone;" --- "as they are able to stand alone."

The problem with the Hostile Arab Palestinian is that they always wanted to decide in a Trial by Combat. And when defeated, they whine about how poorly they were treated. When it was more accurate to speak of it in terms of how arrogant they were.

Rewrite history all you want. But it is not likely that you will achieve the desired results.

Most Respectfully,
R

It doesn't matter if you erroneously consider Palestine not one of the former Turkish territories (which it was) that received provisional statehood. Even if you place Palestine among the other territories, the inhabitants of all the other territories were to receive independence eventually, like Namibia (then called German West Africa I believe).

It is you that are trying to rewrite history. The Covenant of the League of Nations did not contemplate, as you imply, the transfer of Europeans to the former Turkish Territories, the removal of the native inhabitants and the establishment of a colony and then a state for said Europeans. Which is what happened.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel never ceased to control access to Gaza territorial waters.
Israel never ceased to control access to Palestinian air space.
This combined with control of Gaza land borders with third countries (through agreements and/or threats of aid elimination) makes it a fact that a de facto blockade has always been in place.

The Palestinians have every right to use any means to cause a lifting of the blockade.

No they don't they have to abide by IHL and the Geneva conventions, failure to do so means they are terrorists and war criminals. This means that under IHL they are all collectively valid military targets, don't like the law then pester your politicians to change them

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

And therein rests the backbone of the problem.

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open, given that Palestinians were still running attacks. The Airspace was under Israeli control simply because it was beyond the capability of the Palestinians given the dynamics of a 21st Century Air Traffic Control Zone and Air Defense Zone requires.

In a rough, truncated thumbnail view, this is how the externals saw the Palestinians as we approached the 21st Century:

The Palestinians were developing a network of terrorist organizations. The oldest of the groups is the PLO, stared in 1964. The PLO set the primer for violence in the movements to follow. Immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded; and the 1968 splinter group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). In 1969, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) was founded when it split from the PFLP. In 1979, Islamic fundamentals form a the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and in 1988 the Islamic Resistance Movement emerged. In the year 2000, the PLO formed a series of Fatah related terrorist cells operating against Israeli military and civilian settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem; known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; in the same year the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) emerged and became active in the Gaza Strip.

The most significant of the groups where, of course, the PLO and the PFLP.

The PLO set the general content that the long-term organization needed.

• Fatah: The political face as a Palestinian political party on matters of national liberation.
• Tanzim: A specialized Militia for Fatah; to offset the Palestinian Islamism.
• Force 17: Was a failed attempt to establish an Intelligence Service for Fatah.
• Abu Nidal: A strong-armed terrorist set of cells that splintered off of Fatah.

The PFLP was/is a bit more cerebral. It was violence with an agenda.

It promoted a "People's War." (From 1968 to 1984, under the leadership of George Habash, it was the most violent and active of the Palestinian terrorist groups.)

• The purpose of the war was to FORCE a "Peaceful Solution."
• The "Revolutionary Theory" --- Palestinian National Movement; destroying Israel outright. (No two-state solution.)
• The Revolution should include the reformation of Jordan. (The PFLP has a Jordanian Branch.)

All this goes to establish a pattern of criminal behavior, that the Hostile Arab Palestinian rejects as terrorism because they promote themselves as "freedom Fights." The general HoAP rejects the notion that: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. The HoAP see there cause as an exception. They have openly rejected the concept that: All disputes, including their dispute, should be addressed by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

THUS, this establishes the reasoning for the continuation of the HoAP containment (not occupation) in the territories. Let loose, the International Community would be libel for the death and destruction that the HoAP would visit upon the region; endangering the peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open,...​

Load of crap, Rocco.

Relevant info @ 9:10

Once again Islamic propaganda that has never been substantiated from another source.

Laila El Haddad does not do Islamic propaganda.

Says who ?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

And therein rests the backbone of the problem.

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open, given that Palestinians were still running attacks. The Airspace was under Israeli control simply because it was beyond the capability of the Palestinians given the dynamics of a 21st Century Air Traffic Control Zone and Air Defense Zone requires.

In a rough, truncated thumbnail view, this is how the externals saw the Palestinians as we approached the 21st Century:

The Palestinians were developing a network of terrorist organizations. The oldest of the groups is the PLO, stared in 1964. The PLO set the primer for violence in the movements to follow. Immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded; and the 1968 splinter group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). In 1969, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) was founded when it split from the PFLP. In 1979, Islamic fundamentals form a the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and in 1988 the Islamic Resistance Movement emerged. In the year 2000, the PLO formed a series of Fatah related terrorist cells operating against Israeli military and civilian settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem; known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; in the same year the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) emerged and became active in the Gaza Strip.

The most significant of the groups where, of course, the PLO and the PFLP.

The PLO set the general content that the long-term organization needed.

• Fatah: The political face as a Palestinian political party on matters of national liberation.
• Tanzim: A specialized Militia for Fatah; to offset the Palestinian Islamism.
• Force 17: Was a failed attempt to establish an Intelligence Service for Fatah.
• Abu Nidal: A strong-armed terrorist set of cells that splintered off of Fatah.

The PFLP was/is a bit more cerebral. It was violence with an agenda.

It promoted a "People's War." (From 1968 to 1984, under the leadership of George Habash, it was the most violent and active of the Palestinian terrorist groups.)

• The purpose of the war was to FORCE a "Peaceful Solution."
• The "Revolutionary Theory" --- Palestinian National Movement; destroying Israel outright. (No two-state solution.)
• The Revolution should include the reformation of Jordan. (The PFLP has a Jordanian Branch.)

All this goes to establish a pattern of criminal behavior, that the Hostile Arab Palestinian rejects as terrorism because they promote themselves as "freedom Fights." The general HoAP rejects the notion that: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. The HoAP see there cause as an exception. They have openly rejected the concept that: All disputes, including their dispute, should be addressed by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

THUS, this establishes the reasoning for the continuation of the HoAP containment (not occupation) in the territories. Let loose, the International Community would be libel for the death and destruction that the HoAP would visit upon the region; endangering the peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open,...​

Load of crap, Rocco.

Relevant info @ 9:10

Mullah TV?

Don't embarrass yourself with such tripe. You know with certainty that anything coming out of the Iranian Mullocracy is going to have a predetermined agenda.

Like Iran is going to tell Laila El Haddad what to say.

Not!

Says who ?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Oh but it did. In legal parlance the "last word" is the governing word.

Rehmani, et al,

I agree with you. You cannot change history.

Look jew, you can not change many millennium old indigenous palestinian rights because of falls propaganda.

(OBSERVATION)

For nearly 800 years, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was the sovereign power over the territory in question. The sovereign authority actually ended in 1918 with the Armistice of Mudros (Article 16). Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres, also was just a clear; But then again, the Treaty of Lausanne addressed the final say:

The Armistice of Mudros, which was concluded on October 30, 1918
16. Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.

ARTICLE 132, Treaty of Sevres
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.

Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne:
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 neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

(COMMENT)

Now please notice that the Lausanne say two very important things:

• Turkey renounces all rights and title ---
• Turkey recognized by Treaty, that the future of these territories are being settled by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty).

There can be no objection that the Allied Powers, on the effective date of the Treaty (which comes after the LoN Covenant), has the necessary authority to handle the territories any way it wanted.

You cannot change this history either. The territory was surrendered to the Allied Powers; and not to the Arabs of the Palestine; no matter what the Covenant said. The Covenant was written in 1919 and has no reach into (legal effect upon) a treaty written in 1924, by the same authors.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne does not supersede The Covenant of the League of Nations, nor is it in conflict. The Covenant regulates how the Allied Powers, members of the League of Nations, agreed to administer the former Turkish territories.

Stop being silly.

(COMMENT)

How the Allied Powers decided is written in the Order in Council of the League, and the Mandate. There is nothing in the Covenant that "SPECIFICALLY" addresses either an Allied Power, future treaties, or Palestine in particular. The Covenant says "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire," --- the phrase "certain communities" does not mean (necessarily) all communities. It merely implies more than one. And the Independence of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq would fully that requirement.

In fact, the Covenant sets no deadlines, and the Covenant only uses the words "independence" (Art 10) and "Sovereignty" (Art 22(1)) once. And both causes it applies to a party or parties other than those of Palestine. And the Covenant absolutely does not promise any country "sovereignty" or "independence." The phrase says "stand alone;" --- "as they are able to stand alone."

The problem with the Hostile Arab Palestinian is that they always wanted to decide in a Trial by Combat. And when defeated, they whine about how poorly they were treated. When it was more accurate to speak of it in terms of how arrogant they were.

Rewrite history all you want. But it is not likely that you will achieve the desired results.

Most Respectfully,
R

It doesn't matter if you erroneously consider Palestine not one of the former Turkish territories (which it was) that received provisional statehood. Even if you place Palestine among the other territories, the inhabitants of all the other territories were to receive independence eventually, like Namibia (then called German West Africa I believe).

It is you that are trying to rewrite history. The Covenant of the League of Nations did not contemplate, as you imply, the transfer of Europeans to the former Turkish Territories, the removal of the native inhabitants and the establishment of a colony and then a state for said Europeans. Which is what happened.

And which international laws of the time were breached ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

And therein rests the backbone of the problem.

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open, given that Palestinians were still running attacks. The Airspace was under Israeli control simply because it was beyond the capability of the Palestinians given the dynamics of a 21st Century Air Traffic Control Zone and Air Defense Zone requires.

In a rough, truncated thumbnail view, this is how the externals saw the Palestinians as we approached the 21st Century:

The Palestinians were developing a network of terrorist organizations. The oldest of the groups is the PLO, stared in 1964. The PLO set the primer for violence in the movements to follow. Immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded; and the 1968 splinter group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). In 1969, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) was founded when it split from the PFLP. In 1979, Islamic fundamentals form a the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and in 1988 the Islamic Resistance Movement emerged. In the year 2000, the PLO formed a series of Fatah related terrorist cells operating against Israeli military and civilian settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem; known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; in the same year the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) emerged and became active in the Gaza Strip.

The most significant of the groups where, of course, the PLO and the PFLP.

The PLO set the general content that the long-term organization needed.

• Fatah: The political face as a Palestinian political party on matters of national liberation.
• Tanzim: A specialized Militia for Fatah; to offset the Palestinian Islamism.
• Force 17: Was a failed attempt to establish an Intelligence Service for Fatah.
• Abu Nidal: A strong-armed terrorist set of cells that splintered off of Fatah.

The PFLP was/is a bit more cerebral. It was violence with an agenda.

It promoted a "People's War." (From 1968 to 1984, under the leadership of George Habash, it was the most violent and active of the Palestinian terrorist groups.)

• The purpose of the war was to FORCE a "Peaceful Solution."
• The "Revolutionary Theory" --- Palestinian National Movement; destroying Israel outright. (No two-state solution.)
• The Revolution should include the reformation of Jordan. (The PFLP has a Jordanian Branch.)

All this goes to establish a pattern of criminal behavior, that the Hostile Arab Palestinian rejects as terrorism because they promote themselves as "freedom Fights." The general HoAP rejects the notion that: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. The HoAP see there cause as an exception. They have openly rejected the concept that: All disputes, including their dispute, should be addressed by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

THUS, this establishes the reasoning for the continuation of the HoAP containment (not occupation) in the territories. Let loose, the International Community would be libel for the death and destruction that the HoAP would visit upon the region; endangering the peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 2005, there was no Naval Blockade. Border crossings were still operational and comparatively open,...​

Load of crap, Rocco.

Relevant info @ 9:10

Once again Islamic propaganda that has never been substantiated from another source.

Laila El Haddad does not do Islamic propaganda.

Says who ?

You are making the claim. Post something she said that is Islamic propaganda.

 

[Rehmani]

montelatici, et al,

Oh but it did. In legal parlance the "last word" is the governing word.

Rehmani, et al,

I agree with you. You cannot change history.

Look jew, you can not change many millennium old indigenous palestinian rights because of falls propaganda.

(OBSERVATION)

For nearly 800 years, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was the sovereign power over the territory in question. The sovereign authority actually ended in 1918 with the Armistice of Mudros (Article 16). Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres, also was just a clear; But then again, the Treaty of Lausanne addressed the final say:

The Armistice of Mudros, which was concluded on October 30, 1918
16. Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.

ARTICLE 132, Treaty of Sevres
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.

Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne:
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 neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

(COMMENT)

Now please notice that the Lausanne say two very important things:

• Turkey renounces all rights and title ---
• Turkey recognized by Treaty, that the future of these territories are being settled by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty).

There can be no objection that the Allied Powers, on the effective date of the Treaty (which comes after the LoN Covenant), has the necessary authority to handle the territories any way it wanted.

You cannot change this history either. The territory was surrendered to the Allied Powers; and not to the Arabs of the Palestine; no matter what the Covenant said. The Covenant was written in 1919 and has no reach into (legal effect upon) a treaty written in 1924, by the same authors.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne does not supersede The Covenant of the League of Nations, nor is it in conflict. The Covenant regulates how the Allied Powers, members of the League of Nations, agreed to administer the former Turkish territories.

Stop being silly.

(COMMENT)

How the Allied Powers decided is written in the Order in Council of the League, and the Mandate. There is nothing in the Covenant that "SPECIFICALLY" addresses either an Allied Power, future treaties, or Palestine in particular. The Covenant says "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire," --- the phrase "certain communities" does not mean (necessarily) all communities. It merely implies more than one. And the Independence of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq would fully that requirement.

In fact, the Covenant sets no deadlines, and the Covenant only uses the words "independence" (Art 10) and "Sovereignty" (Art 22(1)) once. And both causes it applies to a party or parties other than those of Palestine. And the Covenant absolutely does not promise any country "sovereignty" or "independence." The phrase says "stand alone;" --- "as they are able to stand alone."

The problem with the Hostile Arab Palestinian is that they always wanted to decide in a Trial by Combat. And when defeated, they whine about how poorly they were treated. When it was more accurate to speak of it in terms of how arrogant they were.

Rewrite history all you want. But it is not likely that you will achieve the desired results.

Most Respectfully,
R

It doesn't matter if you erroneously consider Palestine not one of the former Turkish territories (which it was) that received provisional statehood. Even if you place Palestine among the other territories, the inhabitants of all the other territories were to receive independence eventually, like Namibia (then called German West Africa I believe).

It is you that are trying to rewrite history. The Covenant of the League of Nations did not contemplate, as you imply, the transfer of Europeans to the former Turkish Territories, the removal of the native inhabitants and the establishment of a colony and then a state for said Europeans. Which is what happened.

And which international laws of the time were breached ?

please jew accept the facts, as Monteletici is right and make the world peace full.