Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Nice example. I have to chuckle... I have to ask:

•• What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach. The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.

It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.

Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement. The bank need not be a party to the agreement.

(COMMENT)

In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation. Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.

In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation, When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured. The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.

The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers. They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.

Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show. There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.

All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything. Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.

By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action by hold "peace" hostage. IF the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, THEN Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry. Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.

Most Respectfully,
R

You continue with this nonsensical blabbering. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.

Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate. So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine. You are making things up when you claim otherwise.

".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."

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)

No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews. The problem was recognized by the British:

"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.

And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board

I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.

Where do you keep getting this shit?

From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples

Links?

 

[P F Tinmore]

He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.

It didn't?

Link?

Read it again and see

\
It didn't? Was a question not a statement.

You need to keep up.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.

Pit Stop for Criminal Nomad Gangs

The Arabs weren't residents; they were campers.

Today's Palestinians are mostly squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.

Pit Stop for Criminal Nomad Gangs

The Arabs weren't residents; they were campers.

It doesn't take long for the morons to come out of their holes. Of course the Muslims and Christians were residents, they nearly 100% of the residents.

"148. When the Mandate was approved, all concerned were aware of the existence of an overwhelming Arab majority in Palestine. More over, the King-Crane Report, among others, had warned that the Zionist program could not be carried out except by force of arms. It would seem clear, therefore, that the provisions of the Mandate relating to the Jewish National Home could be based only on the assumption that sooner or later the Arab fears would gradually be overcome and that Arab hostility to the terms of the Mandate would in time weaken and disappear."

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

Still using this pack of lies that you know does not say what you claim, unless you manipulate and alter the words in the report.

 

[Phoenall]

He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.

It didn't?

Link?

Read it again and see

\
It didn't? Was a question not a statement.

You need to keep up.

No you do as you dont even read your own cut and paste's now, and then find you have made another OOOPPPS moment

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Nice example. I have to chuckle... I have to ask:

•• What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach. The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.

(COMMENT)

In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation. Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.

In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation, When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured. The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.

The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers. They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.

Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show. There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.

All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything. Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.

By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action by hold "peace" hostage. IF the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, THEN Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry. Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.

Most Respectfully,
R

You continue with this nonsensical blabbering. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.

Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate. So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine. You are making things up when you claim otherwise.

".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."

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)

No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews. The problem was recognized by the British:

"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.

And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board

I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.

Where do you keep getting this shit?

From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples

Links?

Read your own posts where you constantly do it

 

[P F Tinmore]

You continue with this nonsensical blabbering. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.

Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate. So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine. You are making things up when you claim otherwise.

".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."

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)

No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews. The problem was recognized by the British:

"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.

And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board

I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.

Where do you keep getting this shit?

From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples

Links?

Read your own posts where you constantly do it

No links of course.

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Surely you jest.

You don't know very much at all, that's obvious from your posts.

(COMMENT)

"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
Isaac Asimov
Read more at: Isaac Asimov Quotes

"Five things that annoy me; Rude people, cocky people, stuck up people, smelly people, & people who think they know everything."
Unknown quotes

Read more: People Who Think They Know Everything Quotes

Most Respectfully,
R

You can always tell when Rambling RoccoR loses it, he projects his own particular "qualities" onto others. I could respond in kind, but I'm better than that.

 

[Phoenall]

And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board

I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.

Where do you keep getting this shit?

From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples

Links?

Read your own posts where you constantly do it

No links of course.

Still waiting for yours that shows the treaty that created the nation of palestine prior to 1988, why should I give what you refuse ?

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Surely you jest.

You don't know very much at all, that's obvious from your posts.

(COMMENT)

"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
Isaac Asimov
Read more at: Isaac Asimov Quotes

"Five things that annoy me; Rude people, cocky people, stuck up people, smelly people, & people who think they know everything."
Unknown quotes

Read more: People Who Think They Know Everything Quotes

Most Respectfully,
R

You can always tell when Rambling RoccoR loses it, he projects his own particular "qualities" onto others. I could respond in kind, but I'm better than that.

Lifted straight from the red book of disinformation.

Rule 1 try disinformation as a first resort

 

[MJB12741]

Who is stealing whose land? Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?

 

[montelatici]

A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who is stealing whose land? Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?

Religion is not the issue.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Who is stealing whose land? Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?

Religion is not the issue.

Religion always plays a part in Middle East conflicts. It is no coincidence that all of the intifadas started after disturbances on the Temple Mount.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who is stealing whose land? Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?

Religion is not the issue.

Religion always plays a part in Middle East conflicts. It is no coincidence that all of the intifadas started after disturbances on the Temple Mount.

Was it religion or politics?

 

[Phoenall]

Who is stealing whose land? Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?

Religion is not the issue.

Yes it is when the arab muslims bring it into the equation, and they have used it many times as a stick to break eggs

 

[MJB12741]

A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.

Oh now I get it. The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple. Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.

 

[montelatici]

A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.

Oh now I get it. The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple. Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.

What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple. But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.

You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism. LOL

 

[Hollie]

Who is stealing whose land? Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?

Religion is not the issue.

Of course religion is the issue, certainly from the perspective of the Islamist Entity™. You are hoping to sidestep the explicit whining contained in the Hamas charter, for one example, wherein explicit reference is made to Islam and the destruction of Israel.

You shouldn't believe your dishonesty is accepted as anything but what it clearly is.

 

[Phoenall]

Who is stealing whose land? Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?

Religion is not the issue.

Religion always plays a part in Middle East conflicts. It is no coincidence that all of the intifadas started after disturbances on the Temple Mount.

Was it religion or politics?

Same thing as far as islam is concerned