Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

No, you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to not understand the definition of the word "inhabitant' and the term "sacred trust". LOL

And you dont understand what article 22 says about the arab muslims invading the mandate of palestine. They were devoid of any rights due to their invasion and refusal to take part in any nation building. You cant force them to accept tutelage or to accept sacred trust if they dont want to, but you can tell them that they will lose everything if they dont which is what has happened.

 

[Phoenall]

You confuse the word "tutelage" with "governing".

The native inhabitants had all the rights in Palestine. Not European invaders. The new resolution has complete basis in history, logic and law. You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. None of your Hasbara propaganda changes fact. Go away dummy.

What rights are those then, and dont forget to give the date of implementation so we can pull you up over any LIES

 

[P F Tinmore]

This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.

That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.

The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And you dont understand what article 22 says about the arab muslims invading the mandate of palestine. They were devoid of any rights due to their invasion and refusal to take part in any nation building.

Do you have some links to all that shit?

 

[Phoenall]

This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.

That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.

The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.

WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.

As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.


Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?

 

[Phoenall]

And you dont understand what article 22 says about the arab muslims invading the mandate of palestine. They were devoid of any rights due to their invasion and refusal to take part in any nation building.

Do you have some links to all that shit?

Article 22 of course, or do you have a problem with understanding it in English ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And this is an example of an intentional misinterpretation of the meaning and context.

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory.

There you go with the typical colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between what I said and what you recount.

(QUESTION)

What title and rights to what territory (prior to 1948) are the Arab Palestinians holding?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

And this is just another falsehood the Arab Palestinians spread.

P F Tinmore, et al,

To have ducked the question on "heist" (as accused), it presupposes that a crime was committed. That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something (implied territory) had occurred.

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​

(COMMENT)

This is a conspiracy theory of sorts. It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory. The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers. [(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)].

More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or --- "Without that there would not be war." So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war." But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course they had complete right and title, as the inhabitants as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Who else?

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

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

(COMMENT)

There is a couple things wrong here.

• The League of Nations Covenant did not promise or grant anything to the Palestinians. In fact, the Palestinians were not a signatory to the Covenant.

• The Arab Palestinians refused the "rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory."

• The Covenant stipulated that the "practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples." The Arab Palestinians rejected participation three times in the period 1920 - 1923.
​

The criteria outlined in Article 22 describes the Arab Palestinians as a people "not yet able to stand by themselves." In the century since the Balfour Declaration, the Arab Palestinians have not exhibited behavior of a nation able to stand alone; not in 1916 and not in 2016.

No, there is nothing in Article 22 that supports this argument by our friend "montelatici." It is exactly the opposite. It is an argument for the denial of statehood, sovereignty and independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, this is a comprehension problem alright...

No, you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to not understand the definition of the word "inhabitant' and the term "sacred trust". LOL

(COMMENT)

Absolutely nothing was promised to the Arab Palestinians. The Article 22 provision you cite is an agreement between members of the Covenant --- and not the Arab Palestinians.

Yes, "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation." What defines the "sacred trust of civilization?"

• In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?

• In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?
​

It can be argued that in 1919, the phrase "the well-being and development of such peoples" meant that the Allied Powers.

Nothing in Article 22 confers sovereignty and independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.

That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.

The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.

WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.

As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.


Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?

Do you have links to all that shit?

 

[P F Tinmore]

• In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?

• In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?

Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.

(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)

• Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

• 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly

What is a refugee Rocco?

(COMMENT)

As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status. This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).

Why are Palestinians not refugees?

(COMMENT)

This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA. However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility. (Which is a whole other topic.)

By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state.

Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians. They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the de facto guardians of the "Right of Return." (Which is a whole other topic.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them. How do you know it was not delivered?

• In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?

• In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?

Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.

(COMMENT)

Well, don't worry... It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.

(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)

• Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

• 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly

What is a refugee Rocco?

(COMMENT)

As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status. This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).

Why are Palestinians not refugees?

(COMMENT)

This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA. However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility. (Which is a whole other topic.)

By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state.

Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians. They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the de facto guardians of the "Right of Return." (Which is a whole other topic.)

Most Respectfully,
R

You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change. Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."

In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees" This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.

So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.

 

[Phoenall]

This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.

That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.

The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.

WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.

As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.


Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?

Do you have links to all that shit?

WHY DIDNT YOU READ THEM THE LAST 100 TIMES THEY WERE GIVEN.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them. How do you know it was not delivered?

• In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?

• In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?

Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.

(COMMENT)

Well, don't worry... It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go back to the standard colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.

That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.

The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.

WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.

As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.


Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?

Do you have links to all that shit?

WHY DIDNT YOU READ THEM THE LAST 100 TIMES THEY WERE GIVEN.

What was posted that says what you say they said?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You did not read very well...

montelatici, et al,

Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.

(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)

• Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

• 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly

What is a refugee Rocco?

(COMMENT)

As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status. This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).

Why are Palestinians not refugees?

(COMMENT)

This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA. However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility. (Which is a whole other topic.)

By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state.

Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians. They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the de facto guardians of the "Right of Return." (Which is a whole other topic.)

Most Respectfully,
R

You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change. Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."

In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees" This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.

So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.

(COMMENT)

Important safety tip for those of you at home!

Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words: dependent (a matter of support) and descendent (which is a matter of ancestry). The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;" Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses. It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.
​

While I did say this was "a whole other topic," I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria. I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees. I give you these links so that you understand what a Principle Applicant is and what a Derivative Applicant is. The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle. A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement). After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel. In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case. Like I said, it is complicated.

What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have

• Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
• Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
• Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
​

What does this mean... All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.

(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)

• Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

• 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly

What is a refugee Rocco?

(COMMENT)

As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status. This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).

Why are Palestinians not refugees?

(COMMENT)

This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA. However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility. (Which is a whole other topic.)

By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state.

Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians. They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the de facto guardians of the "Right of Return." (Which is a whole other topic.)

Most Respectfully,
R

You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change. Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."

In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees" This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.

So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.

An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them. How do you know it was not delivered?

• In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?

• In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?

Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.

(COMMENT)

Well, don't worry... It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go back to the standard colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.

Ok then why dont you show what rights they had in 1919 when all this took place.

They had the right to take part in talks and that was it