Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Does a "talking point" (I've not seen a Talking Point Paper from the Israeli Government) make it any less valid?

We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition (Arab Palestinian Rights and Title) that never existed.

Another Israeli talking point.

(COMMENT)

If you want to challenge the point, then disassemble it by demonstrating that it is flawed. In this case, you may easily do that by demonstrating that it is FALSE.

• Produce a valid argument that presents evidence that the Arab Palestinian had rights and title.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist.

You keep using that mantra.

WRONG it is your attempt at silencing the truth and reality that palestine as a nation never existed prior to 1988 and the palestinians where what the Jews were called as an insult. But you now run with the islamonazi talking points that have turned history and reality around to suit the nazi POV.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You totally ignored the stated intention. The Mandate for Palestine was unique, in that it had this "special intention" attached to it.

EXCERPT: The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
... ... ...
At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes
representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

SOURCE: Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1
​

The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago. It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution (no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians). The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.

One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire. When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire. Nothing is further from the truth.

The Arab Palestinian, in using this phrase - and attempting to imply that the combined Allied Powers or the Jewish People, or some combination, PLANNED in 1916 to subjugate the non-Jewish population, to either Jewish domination or Mandatory exploitation. They imply that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights; in that the immigrant Jewish People and the British Mandatory have stripped the right to self-determination from the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; and prevented the Arab Palestinian inhabitants to freely pursue their economic, social, cultural development and political statement. The "victim mentality."

The Arab Palestinian inhabitants were offered, numerous times by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory to participate in the processes to establish self-governing institutions. However, the Arab Palestinian inhabitants, having consistently declining to participate and rejecting recommendations that would fulfill the original intent of the Mandate (the establishment of a Jewish National Home), demanding that the Mandatory and the Council of the League of Nations relinquish the entirety of the region to the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Palestinian inhabitants. Recognizing that the Arab Palestinian inhabitants had no intention of attempting a good faith resolution, the Mandatory and the Jewish Agency moved on a more productive path which has resulted in the creation of the most highly developed country of the entire region; including every member of the Arab League. (Ranked 18th on the 2015)

I understand that, the entire Arab League, all 22 Nations, are at a disadvantage because they did not received Allied Powers Support in the form of American Aid, and so they attribute the successful growth in Human Development by Israel to this American intervention. However every single Arab League Member actually received some sort of aid either from the US or other major world power. And, the Palestinians are totally dependent on Donor Nation contributions.

The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.

It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.

(COMMENT)

Again you are confusing things. Sovereignty (or being sovereign) has more than one meaning. Yes, there is the application of this term to that of the individual. HOWEVER, as it applies to nations and states, it is all about "power and authority." Don't try to confuse the participants to this discussion with some esoteric meaning.

Israel successfully defended its bid for independence and sovereignty in the 1948/49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper by the Arab League. Of the four (4) nation states immediately adjacent to Israel, two Arab States (Egypt and Jordan) have made formal treaties (the war has been concluded and international boundaries have been established. Syria is in chaos and unable to form a united government. Syria actually lacks sovereignty over large expanses of the state. Lebanon has lost sovereignty of a major section of Lebanon (the al-Bekka Valley) to the Hezbollah. Thus, it cannot speaks for that territory, lost to terrorist control.

In the early part of the 20th Century, Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, was achieved through the Citizenship and Nationality Instruction of the Palestine Order in Council, and later, the 1925 Citizenship act. Pro-Palestinians attempt to churn the political waters in trying to imply that the Treaty of Lausanne had some relevance in this regard. It does not.

Both the Jewish Immigrant and the inhabitants formerly under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (later Arab Palestinians under Civil Administration of the Mandate) became citizens of the Government of Palestine (the British Mandatory).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

"When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire. Nothing is further from the truth."

Bozo the clown at it again. The moron hasn't a clue about history. Britain's support of Zionism was directly related to protecting the Suez Canal through an imperial colonial outpost. Had the clown read some of Lord Kichener writings before posting his usual bullshit he would not have made the usual fool of himself.

"Britain’s involvement with Zionism arose from the necessity to protect Sue. Without Zionist access to the finance necessary with which to develop Palestine’s infrastructure, protecting Suez would have been commensurately more difficult. Zionists, unsurprisingly, expected that in exchange for financing the country’s economic development, they would have at least some voice in its governance....."

https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/16903387/RichmondPhD.pdf

The U.S. saw it the same way, as stated in this congressional hearing:


"......This obvious situation doubtless inspired the announcement of the British Government November 2nd last albeit the sentimental side of the proposal may have been quite as persuasive A compact powerful and self governing people in Asia Minor thrust between the German controlled Turkish dominions to the North and the Suez Canal with Arabia to the South would do much to check the tide of aggression from that quarter and safeguard the great sea route through the Suez Canal to India...."


The American War Congress and Zionism

 

[Eloy]

P F Tinmore, et al,
... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...

Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,
... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...

Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.

Are you clueless regarding the historic connection the Jewish people had to the area where Israel now exists?

Oh, never mind. Rhetorical question.

 

[Phoenall]

"When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire. Nothing is further from the truth."

Bozo the clown at it again. The moron hasn't a clue about history. Britain's support of Zionism was directly related to protecting the Suez Canal through an imperial colonial outpost. Had the clown read some of Lord Kichener writings before posting his usual bullshit he would not have made the usual fool of himself.

"Britain’s involvement with Zionism arose from the necessity to protect Sue. Without Zionist access to the finance necessary with which to develop Palestine’s infrastructure, protecting Suez would have been commensurately more difficult. Zionists, unsurprisingly, expected that in exchange for financing the country’s economic development, they would have at least some voice in its governance....."

https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/16903387/RichmondPhD.pdf

The U.S. saw it the same way, as stated in this congressional hearing:


"......This obvious situation doubtless inspired the announcement of the British Government November 2nd last albeit the sentimental side of the proposal may have been quite as persuasive A compact powerful and self governing people in Asia Minor thrust between the German controlled Turkish dominions to the North and the Suez Canal with Arabia to the South would do much to check the tide of aggression from that quarter and safeguard the great sea route through the Suez Canal to India...."


The American War Congress and Zionism

When did the Suez canal become of political interest again, as all Britain needed to do was mine it so that they could destroy it at any time. They owned it after treaty with Egypt, and paid for the work to be carried out, so why should Egypt be allowed to come along and take over the running.


Now are your manipulated cut and pastes in any way different to what could be said about the Catholic church and its endeavours in South America or Europe. Just look at the future pope throwing dead Jews into pits of quick lime or into crematoria to hide the damning evidence of their hand in the final solution. How the Catholic church is in bed with islamofascism and neo nazism and is yet to apologise for its actions during WW2. Time for the Jews to go after the Catholic church for reparations for the crimes committed in its name over the last 2 millenia

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,
... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...

Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.

They took in more than the America's did at first, until the Jew haters kicked up and called a halt to the numbers.

But they did as under international laws of 1923 the land of palestine was British. ( England is just one part of Britain, as Washington is just one part of America )

Why do you neo nazis always shoot yourselves in the foot and get things so wrong all the time ?

 

[montelatici]

Native people of Palestine that maintained the Jewish faith as well as the native people of Palestine that converted to Christianity and Islam, have an historic connection. Not Europeans from another continent.

 

[Hollie]

Native people of Palestine that maintained the Jewish faith as well as the native people of Palestine that converted to Christianity and Islam, have an historic connection. Not Europeans from another continent.

Your irrelevant opinion is duly noted and ignored.

Not surprisingly, you provide an allowance for Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders from foreign nations as being somehow "native people". Hilarious.

You have the option to rally the more excitable keyboard gee'hadis at your madrassah, travel to Gaza and pick up a weapon for something more than your usual gee-had of none.

 

[montelatici]

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria or Lebanon. It's a Zionist fantasy.

You need to go back to your Hasbara training facility, your fantasy and science fiction is no longer considered kosher. It's been too thoroughly debunked.

We Christians do Crusades, we don't do "gee-had".

 

[Hollie]

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria or Lebanon. It's a Zionist fantasy.

You need to go back to your Hasbara training facility, your fantasy and science fiction is no longer considered kosher. It's been too thoroughly debunked.

We Christians do Crusades, we don't do "gee-had".

There were invaders, squatters, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The history of the geographic area you and others believe was an autonomous "country" called Pal'istan was invaded and colonized by various cultures.

Don't let your islamo-fantasies and profound ignorance of history allow you to make such continued errors.

 

[montelatici]

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.

No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.

 

[Hollie]

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.

No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.

I can see you're angry, frustrated and embarrassed at having your ignorance brought forth in a public venue, but you have no one but yourself and the prayer leader at your madrassah. There were invaders, squatters, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The history of the geographic area you and others believe was an autonomous "country" called Pal'istan was invaded and colonized by various cultures.

 

[MJB12741]

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.

No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.

I can see you're angry, frustrated and embarrassed at having your ignorance brought forth in a public venue, but you have no one but yourself and the prayer leader at your madrassah. There were invaders, squatters, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The history of the geographic area you and others believe was an autonomous "country" called Pal'istan was invaded and colonized by various cultures.

Please go easy on Monte. Think about what a loss he would be to us for laughs if he leaves us.

 

[Phoenall]

Native people of Palestine that maintained the Jewish faith as well as the native people of Palestine that converted to Christianity and Islam, have an historic connection. Not Europeans from another continent.

Even if they were dragged away by the Catholic church as slaves. Or is that why you are so opposed to the Jews getting their rights as it will open up the can of worms created by the Roman Catholics

 

[Phoenall]

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria or Lebanon. It's a Zionist fantasy.

You need to go back to your Hasbara training facility, your fantasy and science fiction is no longer considered kosher. It's been too thoroughly debunked.

We Christians do Crusades, we don't do "gee-had".

No you do mass murder of innocents as proven through the ages starting with the Jews and ending with the Jews. How many South American natives did your church murder again ?

 

[Phoenall]

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.

No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.

You can always tell when monte is losing the argument he resorts to childish name calling and making outlandish claims

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You totally ignored the stated intention. The Mandate for Palestine was unique, in that it had this "special intention" attached to it.

EXCERPT: The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
... ... ...
At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes
representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

SOURCE: Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1
​

The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago. It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution (no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians). The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.

One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire. When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire. Nothing is further from the truth.

The Arab Palestinian, in using this phrase - and attempting to imply that the combined Allied Powers or the Jewish People, or some combination, PLANNED in 1916 to subjugate the non-Jewish population, to either Jewish domination or Mandatory exploitation. They imply that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights; in that the immigrant Jewish People and the British Mandatory have stripped the right to self-determination from the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; and prevented the Arab Palestinian inhabitants to freely pursue their economic, social, cultural development and political statement. The "victim mentality."

The Arab Palestinian inhabitants were offered, numerous times by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory to participate in the processes to establish self-governing institutions. However, the Arab Palestinian inhabitants, having consistently declining to participate and rejecting recommendations that would fulfill the original intent of the Mandate (the establishment of a Jewish National Home), demanding that the Mandatory and the Council of the League of Nations relinquish the entirety of the region to the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Palestinian inhabitants. Recognizing that the Arab Palestinian inhabitants had no intention of attempting a good faith resolution, the Mandatory and the Jewish Agency moved on a more productive path which has resulted in the creation of the most highly developed country of the entire region; including every member of the Arab League. (Ranked 18th on the 2015)

View attachment 96409​

I understand that, the entire Arab League, all 22 Nations, are at a disadvantage because they did not received Allied Powers Support in the form of American Aid, and so they attribute the successful growth in Human Development by Israel to this American intervention. However every single Arab League Member actually received some sort of aid either from the US or other major world power. And, the Palestinians are totally dependent on Donor Nation contributions.

The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.

It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.

(COMMENT)

Again you are confusing things. Sovereignty (or being sovereign) has more than one meaning. Yes, there is the application of this term to that of the individual. HOWEVER, as it applies to nations and states, it is all about "power and authority." Don't try to confuse the participants to this discussion with some esoteric meaning.

View attachment 96414​

Israel successfully defended its bid for independence and sovereignty in the 1948/49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper by the Arab League. Of the four (4) nation states immediately adjacent to Israel, two Arab States (Egypt and Jordan) have made formal treaties (the war has been concluded and international boundaries have been established. Syria is in chaos and unable to form a united government. Syria actually lacks sovereignty over large expanses of the state. Lebanon has lost sovereignty of a major section of Lebanon (the al-Bekka Valley) to the Hezbollah. Thus, it cannot speaks for that territory, lost to terrorist control.

In the early part of the 20th Century, Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, was achieved through the Citizenship and Nationality Instruction of the Palestine Order in Council, and later, the 1925 Citizenship act. Pro-Palestinians attempt to churn the political waters in trying to imply that the Treaty of Lausanne had some relevance in this regard. It does not.

Both the Jewish Immigrant and the inhabitants formerly under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (later Arab Palestinians under Civil Administration of the Mandate) became citizens of the Government of Palestine (the British Mandatory).

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.​

I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You totally ignored the stated intention. The Mandate for Palestine was unique, in that it had this "special intention" attached to it.

EXCERPT: The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
... ... ...
At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes
representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

SOURCE: Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1
​

The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago. It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution (no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians). The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.

One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire. When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire. Nothing is further from the truth.

The Arab Palestinian, in using this phrase - and attempting to imply that the combined Allied Powers or the Jewish People, or some combination, PLANNED in 1916 to subjugate the non-Jewish population, to either Jewish domination or Mandatory exploitation. They imply that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights; in that the immigrant Jewish People and the British Mandatory have stripped the right to self-determination from the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; and prevented the Arab Palestinian inhabitants to freely pursue their economic, social, cultural development and political statement. The "victim mentality."

The Arab Palestinian inhabitants were offered, numerous times by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory to participate in the processes to establish self-governing institutions. However, the Arab Palestinian inhabitants, having consistently declining to participate and rejecting recommendations that would fulfill the original intent of the Mandate (the establishment of a Jewish National Home), demanding that the Mandatory and the Council of the League of Nations relinquish the entirety of the region to the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Palestinian inhabitants. Recognizing that the Arab Palestinian inhabitants had no intention of attempting a good faith resolution, the Mandatory and the Jewish Agency moved on a more productive path which has resulted in the creation of the most highly developed country of the entire region; including every member of the Arab League. (Ranked 18th on the 2015)

View attachment 96409​

I understand that, the entire Arab League, all 22 Nations, are at a disadvantage because they did not received Allied Powers Support in the form of American Aid, and so they attribute the successful growth in Human Development by Israel to this American intervention. However every single Arab League Member actually received some sort of aid either from the US or other major world power. And, the Palestinians are totally dependent on Donor Nation contributions.

The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.

It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.

(COMMENT)

Again you are confusing things. Sovereignty (or being sovereign) has more than one meaning. Yes, there is the application of this term to that of the individual. HOWEVER, as it applies to nations and states, it is all about "power and authority." Don't try to confuse the participants to this discussion with some esoteric meaning.

View attachment 96414​

Israel successfully defended its bid for independence and sovereignty in the 1948/49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper by the Arab League. Of the four (4) nation states immediately adjacent to Israel, two Arab States (Egypt and Jordan) have made formal treaties (the war has been concluded and international boundaries have been established. Syria is in chaos and unable to form a united government. Syria actually lacks sovereignty over large expanses of the state. Lebanon has lost sovereignty of a major section of Lebanon (the al-Bekka Valley) to the Hezbollah. Thus, it cannot speaks for that territory, lost to terrorist control.

In the early part of the 20th Century, Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, was achieved through the Citizenship and Nationality Instruction of the Palestine Order in Council, and later, the 1925 Citizenship act. Pro-Palestinians attempt to churn the political waters in trying to imply that the Treaty of Lausanne had some relevance in this regard. It does not.

Both the Jewish Immigrant and the inhabitants formerly under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (later Arab Palestinians under Civil Administration of the Mandate) became citizens of the Government of Palestine (the British Mandatory).

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.​

Instead of spamming the board with multiple cut and paste instances of the same YouTube video, why not post a link to any one of the previous instances of your cut and paste?

"I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism."

By regular colonialism, do you mean the regular islamist colonialism?

Not that I would anticipate a bit of honesty on your part but history is unequivocal in its demonstration of perpetual islamist war and conquest in furtherance of its colonial goals.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,
... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...

Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.

Now how do you know that, Eloy? BTW, do you think the British people these days are happy with so many Muslims in their midst. No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.