Justice for the Palestinians

[Phoenall]

View attachment 78975

Does this mean that the actual exports are a little piddle of what was agreed?

No it means that you are being stupid again and twisting the facts. The reality is that the Palestinians can only just manage to produce a miniscule amount of trade goods because of their stupidity and inability to show free determination.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, for the love of the Almighty...

According to the theory of popular sovereignty (the dominant theory of contemporary international law) the people are the sovereigns inside a defined territory. Governments and states are only sovereign as extensions of popular sovereignty. The Palestinians, being the legal inhabitants and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine, are the sovereigns of that territory.

(COMMENT)

Yes, in some levels of discussion, the "popular theory" is dominant. And indeed there more than one sovereignty. But certainly, that does not hold true for Egypt or Saudi Arabian, or any country with Warlords. It does not hold true for Iran or China (China population is equivalent to 18.72% of the total world population --- all by itself.). The rights or the people are what the reigning power says it is. Remember, it is not individual letters from each individual constituent that establishes the point at which a independent state begings to assume control from an adjacent state.

The sovereign state is likely to remain a potent source of authority and community and it draws it meaning upon the demarcation line, and it is the state that enforces the demarcation line that demonstrates it sovereignty from on side of the border to the other.

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

(COMMENT)

You do not understand the meaning of a defined territory. When the people of Gaza travel north and they run into a demarcation which they cannot physically cross, they have run into the sovereignty of Israel and one segment of its defined territory. You can stretch your hand out and physically tough the barrier, that is defined territory. If the Arab Palestinian get too close to the barrier, and are interdicted by the Israeli Border Police, that is a demonstrated demarcation line or a defined territory.

Sovereignty --- as a concept --- is very fluid and malleable. BUT in the physical world, when you need identity papers to pass from one dominion to another --- that barrier upon which you pass is the "defined territory." And for as much as the Arab Palestinians complain that they are encapsulated, they should actually understand that: YOU can write, all day long, that Israel has not defined territory, that does not impact its actual physical existence. On the other hand, there is no such enforcement of the border going the other way. So, the actual enforced lines that identify the parameter of the "territories occupied since 1967," are actually set by (not where Palestinian authority begins --- BUT --- where Israeli authority ends.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

(COMMENT)

That means absolutely nothing. Repeat --- absolutely nothing. That is a conceptual description. The right does not actually secure anything tangible or open a gateway from one place to another. You read the words, but you do not understand its meaning.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I want you to read and understand what you are saying here.

Where are the exports?

Until Gaza is allowed to farm, fish, manufacture, and export they will depend on aid.

(COMMENT)

If you are arguing that the territory that the Israelis have outlined and defined as Gaza is totally dependent upon what Israel does inside those boundaries it enforces as sovereign Israel, then the implication is much bigger than mere economic concerns mentioned here. It tells you something about whether Gaza actually meets the Article 22 "stand alone" criteria.

It does not matter the reason why Gaza cannot meet the criteria established a century ago, it either does or it does not.

The reason the constituents of the Gaza Strip find themselves in this situation is that the constituents represent a clear and present danger to maintaining the peace. If the constituents of Gaza were actually abiding by the Declaration of Principles for International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, then the restriction would not be anywhere near what they are today. But the Constituents of Gaza, and the West Bank for that matter, have demonstrated themselves to be a people that cannot be allowed to operate at the level of normal freedoms without becoming a danger to themselves and the world.

If the constituents of Gaza actually want to participate in the free exchange of commerce, trade in manufactured goods and services, industrialization and development activity, then they must accept the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights, human life, peaceful pursuits and security that come from developing friendly relations on political, economic and social systems --- or --- the levels of their development, that do not represent a threat.

Simple!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

According to the theory of popular sovereignty (the dominant theory of contemporary international law) the people are the sovereigns inside a defined territory. Governments and states are only sovereign as extensions of popular sovereignty. The Palestinians, being the legal inhabitants and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine, are the sovereigns of that territory.

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?​

Here again, let's go back to Montevideo.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”

Link?

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

So why didn't the arab muslims claim independence in 1920 when they first had that chance ? My bad they did and it was called trans Jordan. It was the Jews that were stopped from claiming independence and free determination by the arab muslims until 1948 when the British left before facing charges of crimes against humanity and genocide.

WRONG as it was defined in 1923 by the LoN

See here


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:11


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.




Why do you leave out the " existence as a person under international law." is it because the international laws of the time disagree with your interpretation of the rights allowed at that time. And also because it supports Israel position and not the arab muslims, as shown by your heavy manipulation of the content of your source evidence.

Indeed, those are Palestine's international borders.

The Jewish National Home was to allow Jews to get Palestinian citizenship and live in Palestine with the Palestinians.

Nowhere in the post war treaties will you find Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive. Those things were never mentioned.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, for the love of the Almighty...

According to the theory of popular sovereignty (the dominant theory of contemporary international law) the people are the sovereigns inside a defined territory. Governments and states are only sovereign as extensions of popular sovereignty. The Palestinians, being the legal inhabitants and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine, are the sovereigns of that territory.

(COMMENT)

Yes, in some levels of discussion, the "popular theory" is dominant. And indeed there more than one sovereignty. But certainly, that does not hold true for Egypt or Saudi Arabian, or any country with Warlords. It does not hold true for Iran or China (China population is equivalent to 18.72% of the total world population --- all by itself.). The rights or the people are what the reigning power says it is. Remember, it is not individual letters from each individual constituent that establishes the point at which a independent state begings to assume control from an adjacent state.

The sovereign state is likely to remain a potent source of authority and community and it draws it meaning upon the demarcation line, and it is the state that enforces the demarcation line that demonstrates it sovereignty from on side of the border to the other.

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

(COMMENT)

You do not understand the meaning of a defined territory. When the people of Gaza travel north and they run into a demarcation which they cannot physically cross, they have run into the sovereignty of Israel and one segment of its defined territory. You can stretch your hand out and physically tough the barrier, that is defined territory. If the Arab Palestinian get too close to the barrier, and are interdicted by the Israeli Border Police, that is a demonstrated demarcation line or a defined territory.

Sovereignty --- as a concept --- is very fluid and malleable. BUT in the physical world, when you need identity papers to pass from one dominion to another --- that barrier upon which you pass is the "defined territory." And for as much as the Arab Palestinians complain that they are encapsulated, they should actually understand that: YOU can write, all day long, that Israel has not defined territory, that does not impact its actual physical existence. On the other hand, there is no such enforcement of the border going the other way. So, the actual enforced lines that identify the parameter of the "territories occupied since 1967," are actually set by (not where Palestinian authority begins --- BUT --- where Israeli authority ends.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

(COMMENT)

That means absolutely nothing. Repeat --- absolutely nothing. That is a conceptual description. The right does not actually secure anything tangible or open a gateway from one place to another. You read the words, but you do not understand its meaning.

Most Respectfully,
R

You do not understand the meaning of a defined territory.​

Yes I do. A line of goons with guns do not define legitimate territory.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you can even remotely say this. While the Allied Arab Forces (Hashemite) and the early zionist understood and even agreed to cooperate towards the mutual "national aspirations" of the other; the enemy Arabs of Palestine formerly under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) were not as astute.

Indeed, those are Palestine's international borders.

The Jewish National Home was to allow Jews to get Palestinian citizenship and live in Palestine with the Palestinians.

Nowhere in the post war treaties will you find Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive. Those things were never mentioned.

(COMMENT)

By the same token, the "Nowhere in the post war treaties will you find exclusive to the Arab Palestinians. I assume that YOU DO NOT consider the Mandate (owning it's framework to the 1920 San Remo Conference being the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home.") as sufficiently authoritative.

• Article 2

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic
conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home (JNH), as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions,
​

In fact, Article two is exceptionally interesting as for what is not said --- as for what it does says:

• What it says in plain text:

(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;

(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
​

• What it DOES NOT SAY, but maybe implied:

(i) the creation of a Jewish national home is undefined; it puts no limitation on the meaning.

(ii) the creation of self-governing institutions does not preclude the JHN from being self-governing.

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants; suggests that there was an intent to insure the inhabitance should be protected against possible abuses by JNH Self-Governing Institution
​

This lack of insight on the part of the Arab Palestinians was found that the probable causes of the Arab-Jewish conflict had three aspects to t, depending on the perspective:

(a) The profound disappointment the Arabs (West of the Jordan River) at the lack of fulfillment of the promises of independence --- they thought were their due. The Arabs West of the Jordan thought themselves separate and distinct from the Arabs East of the Jordan River (three-quarters of the Mandate) that became the Article 25 Transjordan cut-out.

(b) The misinterpretation of the facts leading to a belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the Arab right of self-determination, and:

(i) There was a growing and mistaken understanding that the Article 2 establishment of the JNH would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration; and

(ii) That there would be an economic and political dominance by the Jews over the Arab inhabitance.
​

(c) There was an incitement of discontent through external propaganda (from outside Palestine) associated with a disgruntled Emir Faisal;
​

Just as the Allied Powers left the boundaries to which the Mandate Applied flexible, so it was that the definition of the JNH was left in in-determinant. What we do know is that the JNH did not include a
create a wholly Jewish Palestine; as was stipulated in the Article 25 carveout. The Mandatory expressed the opinion that:

"In order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide an opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connexion.
History of the UK Establishment of British Administration Section I, The White Paper of 1922, Paragraph 15,
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

According to the theory of popular sovereignty (the dominant theory of contemporary international law) the people are the sovereigns inside a defined territory. Governments and states are only sovereign as extensions of popular sovereignty. The Palestinians, being the legal inhabitants and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine, are the sovereigns of that territory.

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?​

Here again, let's go back to Montevideo.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”

Link?

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

So why didn't the arab muslims claim independence in 1920 when they first had that chance ? My bad they did and it was called trans Jordan. It was the Jews that were stopped from claiming independence and free determination by the arab muslims until 1948 when the British left before facing charges of crimes against humanity and genocide.

WRONG as it was defined in 1923 by the LoN

See here


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:11


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.




Why do you leave out the " existence as a person under international law." is it because the international laws of the time disagree with your interpretation of the rights allowed at that time. And also because it supports Israel position and not the arab muslims, as shown by your heavy manipulation of the content of your source evidence.

Indeed, those are Palestine's international borders.

The Jewish National Home was to allow Jews to get Palestinian citizenship and live in Palestine with the Palestinians.

Nowhere in the post war treaties will you find Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive. Those things were never mentioned.

Where does it say they are the nation of palestines borders, as the actual wording it the treaty is

Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory


No mention of the state of Palestine just the geographical area of Palestine for the Jewish NATIONal home



Which war is that as post WW1 the treaties talk about Jewish NATIONal home and set out exclusive rights to arab muslims and Jews. What you mean is you ignore the treaties that say these things because they burst your bubble

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, for the love of the Almighty...

According to the theory of popular sovereignty (the dominant theory of contemporary international law) the people are the sovereigns inside a defined territory. Governments and states are only sovereign as extensions of popular sovereignty. The Palestinians, being the legal inhabitants and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine, are the sovereigns of that territory.

(COMMENT)

Yes, in some levels of discussion, the "popular theory" is dominant. And indeed there more than one sovereignty. But certainly, that does not hold true for Egypt or Saudi Arabian, or any country with Warlords. It does not hold true for Iran or China (China population is equivalent to 18.72% of the total world population --- all by itself.). The rights or the people are what the reigning power says it is. Remember, it is not individual letters from each individual constituent that establishes the point at which a independent state begings to assume control from an adjacent state.

The sovereign state is likely to remain a potent source of authority and community and it draws it meaning upon the demarcation line, and it is the state that enforces the demarcation line that demonstrates it sovereignty from on side of the border to the other.

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

(COMMENT)

You do not understand the meaning of a defined territory. When the people of Gaza travel north and they run into a demarcation which they cannot physically cross, they have run into the sovereignty of Israel and one segment of its defined territory. You can stretch your hand out and physically tough the barrier, that is defined territory. If the Arab Palestinian get too close to the barrier, and are interdicted by the Israeli Border Police, that is a demonstrated demarcation line or a defined territory.

Sovereignty --- as a concept --- is very fluid and malleable. BUT in the physical world, when you need identity papers to pass from one dominion to another --- that barrier upon which you pass is the "defined territory." And for as much as the Arab Palestinians complain that they are encapsulated, they should actually understand that: YOU can write, all day long, that Israel has not defined territory, that does not impact its actual physical existence. On the other hand, there is no such enforcement of the border going the other way. So, the actual enforced lines that identify the parameter of the "territories occupied since 1967," are actually set by (not where Palestinian authority begins --- BUT --- where Israeli authority ends.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

(COMMENT)

That means absolutely nothing. Repeat --- absolutely nothing. That is a conceptual description. The right does not actually secure anything tangible or open a gateway from one place to another. You read the words, but you do not understand its meaning.

Most Respectfully,
R

You do not understand the meaning of a defined territory.​

Yes I do. A line of goons with guns do not define legitimate territory.

Then what is the defined territory of the nation of Palestine ?

And that is all the Palestinians have to define what little territory they have, a line of goons with guns.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you can even remotely say this. While the Allied Arab Forces (Hashemite) and the early zionist understood and even agreed to cooperate towards the mutual "national aspirations" of the other; the enemy Arabs of Palestine formerly under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) were not as astute.

Indeed, those are Palestine's international borders.

The Jewish National Home was to allow Jews to get Palestinian citizenship and live in Palestine with the Palestinians.

Nowhere in the post war treaties will you find Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive. Those things were never mentioned.

(COMMENT)

By the same token, the "Nowhere in the post war treaties will you find exclusive to the Arab Palestinians. I assume that YOU DO NOT consider the Mandate (owning it's framework to the 1920 San Remo Conference being the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home.") as sufficiently authoritative.

• Article 2

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic
conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home (JNH), as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions,
​

In fact, Article two is exceptionally interesting as for what is not said --- as for what it does says:

• What it says in plain text:

(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;

(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
​

• What it DOES NOT SAY, but maybe implied:

(i) the creation of a Jewish national home is undefined; it puts no limitation on the meaning.

(ii) the creation of self-governing institutions does not preclude the JHN from being self-governing.

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants; suggests that there was an intent to insure the inhabitance should be protected against possible abuses by JNH Self-Governing Institution
​

This lack of insight on the part of the Arab Palestinians was found that the probable causes of the Arab-Jewish conflict had three aspects to t, depending on the perspective:

(a) The profound disappointment the Arabs (West of the Jordan River) at the lack of fulfillment of the promises of independence --- they thought were their due. The Arabs West of the Jordan thought themselves separate and distinct from the Arabs East of the Jordan River (three-quarters of the Mandate) that became the Article 25 Transjordan cut-out.

(b) The misinterpretation of the facts leading to a belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the Arab right of self-determination, and:

(i) There was a growing and mistaken understanding that the Article 2 establishment of the JNH would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration; and

(ii) That there would be an economic and political dominance by the Jews over the Arab inhabitance.
​

(c) There was an incitement of discontent through external propaganda (from outside Palestine) associated with a disgruntled Emir Faisal;​

Just as the Allied Powers left the boundaries to which the Mandate Applied flexible, so it was that the definition of the JNH was left in in-determinant. What we do know is that the JNH did not include a
create a wholly Jewish Palestine; as was stipulated in the Article 25 carveout. The Mandatory expressed the opinion that:

"In order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide an opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connexion.
History of the UK Establishment of British Administration Section I, The White Paper of 1922, Paragraph 15,
​

Most Respectfully,
R

You need to understand that as far as tinny is concerned none of those treaties are valid because they apply to the Jews having rights. He denies the Jews any rights because he is consumed with hatred for them

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you can even remotely say this. While the Allied Arab Forces (Hashemite) and the early zionist understood and even agreed to cooperate towards the mutual "national aspirations" of the other; the enemy Arabs of Palestine formerly under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) were not as astute.

Indeed, those are Palestine's international borders.

The Jewish National Home was to allow Jews to get Palestinian citizenship and live in Palestine with the Palestinians.

Nowhere in the post war treaties will you find Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive. Those things were never mentioned.

(COMMENT)

By the same token, the "Nowhere in the post war treaties will you find exclusive to the Arab Palestinians. I assume that YOU DO NOT consider the Mandate (owning it's framework to the 1920 San Remo Conference being the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home.") as sufficiently authoritative.

• Article 2

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic
conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home (JNH), as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions,
​

In fact, Article two is exceptionally interesting as for what is not said --- as for what it does says:

• What it says in plain text:

(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;

(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
​

• What it DOES NOT SAY, but maybe implied:

(i) the creation of a Jewish national home is undefined; it puts no limitation on the meaning.

(ii) the creation of self-governing institutions does not preclude the JHN from being self-governing.

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants; suggests that there was an intent to insure the inhabitance should be protected against possible abuses by JNH Self-Governing Institution
​

This lack of insight on the part of the Arab Palestinians was found that the probable causes of the Arab-Jewish conflict had three aspects to t, depending on the perspective:

(a) The profound disappointment the Arabs (West of the Jordan River) at the lack of fulfillment of the promises of independence --- they thought were their due. The Arabs West of the Jordan thought themselves separate and distinct from the Arabs East of the Jordan River (three-quarters of the Mandate) that became the Article 25 Transjordan cut-out.

(b) The misinterpretation of the facts leading to a belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the Arab right of self-determination, and:

(i) There was a growing and mistaken understanding that the Article 2 establishment of the JNH would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration; and

(ii) That there would be an economic and political dominance by the Jews over the Arab inhabitance.
​

(c) There was an incitement of discontent through external propaganda (from outside Palestine) associated with a disgruntled Emir Faisal;​

Just as the Allied Powers left the boundaries to which the Mandate Applied flexible, so it was that the definition of the JNH was left in in-determinant. What we do know is that the JNH did not include a
create a wholly Jewish Palestine; as was stipulated in the Article 25 carveout. The Mandatory expressed the opinion that:

"In order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide an opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connexion.
History of the UK Establishment of British Administration Section I, The White Paper of 1922, Paragraph 15,
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arabs West of the Jordan thought themselves separate and distinct from the Arabs East of the Jordan River​

Probably because that was where they lived and they did not want to get bounced by a colonial project.

 

[aris2chat]

View attachment 78975

Does this mean that the actual exports are a little piddle of what was agreed?

They have to produce enough to actually export out of gaza. Most food is consumed in gaza and this is not the season for flowers or fruit.
they have fish farms, they raise chickens, sheep and some cows. Furniture and textiles are their main industries for export beside agriculture. Even tough their exports are up 67%, a third or more goes to the WB.

Their main product is tunnels and rockets.

Maybe if hamas was not venomously at war with Israel, more stability would mean more trade and more foreign investment.
Gaza has to fix their own problems and stop depending on handouts from the world.
Stability and peace I the key. That would bring tourism as well.
If the island is built, it will mean air flight in and out and shipping would also benefit their economy.
Nothing will get better if they can't create a stable state.

right now they can't even form a unity with the WB, let alone with Israel

Why don't they have more exports? Because hamas prefers attacking Israel than building their economy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

View attachment 78975

Does this mean that the actual exports are a little piddle of what was agreed?

They have to produce enough to actually export out of gaza. Most food is consumed in gaza and this is not the season for flowers or fruit.
they have fish farms, they raise chickens, sheep and some cows. Furniture and textiles are their main industries for export beside agriculture. Even tough their exports are up 67%, a third or more goes to the WB.

Their main product is tunnels and rockets.

Maybe if hamas was not venomously at war with Israel, more stability would mean more trade and more foreign investment.
Gaza has to fix their own problems and stop depending on handouts from the world.
Stability and peace I the key. That would bring tourism as well.
If the island is built, it will mean air flight in and out and shipping would also benefit their economy.
Nothing will get better if they can't create a stable state.

right now they can't even form a unity with the WB, let alone with Israel

Why don't they have more exports? Because hamas prefers attacking Israel than building their economy.

If the island is built, it will mean air flight in and out and shipping would also benefit their economy.​

When I heard about that island I thought it was too good to be true. I was right. There is one giant clunker in that project. The island itself will be in Israel's territorial waters with a long bridge to Gaza.

Since Israel has the "right" to determine what enters Israel, it will have complete control of persons and goods in and out of Gaza. Israel is not spending all that money to be nice. it is to keep its boot on Gaza's neck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

View attachment 78975

Does this mean that the actual exports are a little piddle of what was agreed?

They have to produce enough to actually export out of gaza. Most food is consumed in gaza and this is not the season for flowers or fruit.
they have fish farms, they raise chickens, sheep and some cows. Furniture and textiles are their main industries for export beside agriculture. Even tough their exports are up 67%, a third or more goes to the WB.

Their main product is tunnels and rockets.

Maybe if hamas was not venomously at war with Israel, more stability would mean more trade and more foreign investment.
Gaza has to fix their own problems and stop depending on handouts from the world.
Stability and peace I the key. That would bring tourism as well.
If the island is built, it will mean air flight in and out and shipping would also benefit their economy.
Nothing will get better if they can't create a stable state.

right now they can't even form a unity with the WB, let alone with Israel

Why don't they have more exports? Because hamas prefers attacking Israel than building their economy.

they have fish farms,​

The entire west side of Gaza is on the Mediterranean.

Why would they have fish farms?

That's crazy.

 

[anotherlife]

So. On another thread someone said, "In all negotiations, justice (for the Palestinians) has been off the table".

Let's discuss. What does "justice" mean? What would justice for the Palestinians look like?

Here is another model for the Palestine question you are asking. This one doesn't require justifications with various versions of history. The Jews created an identity about themselves. Creating identities, and also demolishing identities is a standard tool of international power politics. The Palestinians created an identity about themselves too, to match the Jew identity. This match is unacceptable from the Jew point of view, even if it is this simple and logical.

 

[P F Tinmore]

View attachment 78975

Does this mean that the actual exports are a little piddle of what was agreed?

They have to produce enough to actually export out of gaza. Most food is consumed in gaza and this is not the season for flowers or fruit.
they have fish farms, they raise chickens, sheep and some cows. Furniture and textiles are their main industries for export beside agriculture. Even tough their exports are up 67%, a third or more goes to the WB.

Their main product is tunnels and rockets.

Maybe if hamas was not venomously at war with Israel, more stability would mean more trade and more foreign investment.
Gaza has to fix their own problems and stop depending on handouts from the world.
Stability and peace I the key. That would bring tourism as well.
If the island is built, it will mean air flight in and out and shipping would also benefit their economy.
Nothing will get better if they can't create a stable state.

right now they can't even form a unity with the WB, let alone with Israel

Why don't they have more exports? Because hamas prefers attacking Israel than building their economy.

right now they can't even form a unity with the WB​

And I bet that you have no idea why that is.

 

[aris2chat]

View attachment 78975

Does this mean that the actual exports are a little piddle of what was agreed?

They have to produce enough to actually export out of gaza. Most food is consumed in gaza and this is not the season for flowers or fruit.
they have fish farms, they raise chickens, sheep and some cows. Furniture and textiles are their main industries for export beside agriculture. Even tough their exports are up 67%, a third or more goes to the WB.

Their main product is tunnels and rockets.

Maybe if hamas was not venomously at war with Israel, more stability would mean more trade and more foreign investment.
Gaza has to fix their own problems and stop depending on handouts from the world.
Stability and peace I the key. That would bring tourism as well.
If the island is built, it will mean air flight in and out and shipping would also benefit their economy.
Nothing will get better if they can't create a stable state.

right now they can't even form a unity with the WB, let alone with Israel

Why don't they have more exports? Because hamas prefers attacking Israel than building their economy.

they have fish farms,​

The entire west side of Gaza is on the Mediterranean.

Why would they have fish farms?

That's crazy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So. On another thread someone said, "In all negotiations, justice (for the Palestinians) has been off the table".

Let's discuss. What does "justice" mean? What would justice for the Palestinians look like?

Well, for starters, The Palestinians should be allowed to go back to their homes.

 

[aris2chat]

If you are brave enough to eat fish from water off the coast of gaza.......be my guest. Don't expect flowers at your funeral

gaze dumps live sewage into their sea water. You want them to eat what they shit?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If you are brave enough to eat fish from water off the coast of gaza.......be my guest. Don't expect flowers at your funeral

gaze dumps live sewage into their sea water. You want them to eat what they shit?

Good point. Israel destroyed their sewage plant and will not allow it to be rebuilt.

That's crazy.

 

[aris2chat]

If you are brave enough to eat fish from water off the coast of gaza.......be my guest. Don't expect flowers at your funeral

gaze dumps live sewage into their sea water. You want them to eat what they shit?

Good point. Israel destroyed their sewage plant and will not allow it to be rebuilt.

That's crazy.

and Germany gave gaza 20 million to repair the plant...........but it is still over flowing and dumping into the sea

Millions of raw sewage each day polluting not just there coast, but Egypt and Israel as well.

power to the plant and poor management has been one of the major problems since '13

Bombing was after the sewage failure and the banks of the plant broke.
Little as been done with Germany's money since then. Hamas still won't power the plant sufficiently making the crisis worse. They don't want to pay WB for fuel to run the power plants. Donations of fuel only go so far and hamas still rations the fuel. Israel even has offered to supply power for the sewage plant.

Sewage plant was a disaster long before the bombing and hamas won't fix the problems, they would rather build tunnels.

Israel's desalination plant is threatened, which also helps supply gaza with drinking water.

So who is the real crazy? Gaza is hurting themselves because they won't fix or operate the plant the way it should.