Kerry Warns of Israeli ‘Apartheid’

[Roudy]

Palestinians did not have a unique language, religion, culture, history, etc., to identify them as a people. Everything that would identify them as unique they share with the arab states around them.

Palestinians were of mixed religion though predominantly islam, spoke arabic of a southern levantine dialect (more egyptian and bedouin), had not history or being a united people with a history of an nation.
Simply living in a place for at least two years does not make one part of a nation or unique people.
Migrants, transients, nomads, seasonal workers does not make one a native people of the land you work.
Nearly half the palestinians were given that identity from the mandate by chance when the mandate ended. It was not possible to separate and repatriate half the arab population, so they all got lumped together as palestinians.

Again this simply denies Palestinian nationalism which is nonsense, 50 years before Zionism (when Jews numbered barely 3% and called themselves Palestinian) the Ottomans had to put down a separatist Palestinian national movement.

Palestians (including a tiny proportion who were Jews) lived in Palestine for near two milllenium and to suggest tehy were not a nation with nationalist ideology is pure fantasy.

Why of course that is pure bullshit, unless you can provide a link.

 

[Beelzebub]

Palestinians did not have a unique language, religion, culture, history, etc., to identify them as a people. Everything that would identify them as unique they share with the arab states around them.

Palestinians were of mixed religion though predominantly islam, spoke arabic of a southern levantine dialect (more egyptian and bedouin), had not history or being a united people with a history of an nation.
Simply living in a place for at least two years does not make one part of a nation or unique people.
Migrants, transients, nomads, seasonal workers does not make one a native people of the land you work.
Nearly half the palestinians were given that identity from the mandate by chance when the mandate ended. It was not possible to separate and repatriate half the arab population, so they all got lumped together as palestinians.

Again this simply denies Palestinian nationalism which is nonsense, 50 years before Zionism (when Jews numbered barely 3% and called themselves Palestinian) the Ottomans had to put down a separatist Palestinian national movement.

Palestians (including a tiny proportion who were Jews) lived in Palestine for near two milllenium and to suggest tehy were not a nation with nationalist ideology is pure fantasy.

Just so.

 

[Phoenall]

Palestinians did not have a unique language, religion, culture, history, etc., to identify them as a people. Everything that would identify them as unique they share with the arab states around them.

Palestinians were of mixed religion though predominantly islam, spoke arabic of a southern levantine dialect (more egyptian and bedouin), had not history or being a united people with a history of an nation.
Simply living in a place for at least two years does not make one part of a nation or unique people.
Migrants, transients, nomads, seasonal workers does not make one a native people of the land you work.
Nearly half the palestinians were given that identity from the mandate by chance when the mandate ended. It was not possible to separate and repatriate half the arab population, so they all got lumped together as palestinians.

Again this simply denies Palestinian nationalism which is nonsense, 50 years before Zionism (when Jews numbered barely 3% and called themselves Palestinian) the Ottomans had to put down a separatist Palestinian national movement.

Palestians (including a tiny proportion who were Jews) lived in Palestine for near two milllenium and to suggest tehy were not a nation with nationalist ideology is pure fantasy.

Just so.

Then they must have had a leader of some description, Laws, a Police force to enforce the Laws, a currency, a capital city, a GDP, some form of government and treaties with their neighbours and trading partners. Should not be that difficult to find evidence of this as you can find evidence of other things less salient to Palestine's integrity.

 

[montelatici]

Again this simply denies Palestinian nationalism which is nonsense, 50 years before Zionism (when Jews numbered barely 3% and called themselves Palestinian) the Ottomans had to put down a separatist Palestinian national movement.

Palestians (including a tiny proportion who were Jews) lived in Palestine for near two milllenium and to suggest tehy were not a nation with nationalist ideology is pure fantasy.

Just so.

Then they must have had a leader of some description, Laws, a Police force to enforce the Laws, a currency, a capital city, a GDP, some form of government and treaties with their neighbours and trading partners. Should not be that difficult to find evidence of this as you can find evidence of other things less salient to Palestine's integrity.

Wonder how the Roma, the Basques, the Corisicans the Kurds, etc. feel about Phony's requirements to be a people?

 

[aris2chat]

Palestinians did not have a unique language, religion, culture, history, etc., to identify them as a people. Everything that would identify them as unique they share with the arab states around them.

Palestinians were of mixed religion though predominantly islam, spoke arabic of a southern levantine dialect (more egyptian and bedouin), had not history or being a united people with a history of an nation.
Simply living in a place for at least two years does not make one part of a nation or unique people.
Migrants, transients, nomads, seasonal workers does not make one a native people of the land you work.
Nearly half the palestinians were given that identity from the mandate by chance when the mandate ended. It was not possible to separate and repatriate half the arab population, so they all got lumped together as palestinians.

Again this simply denies Palestinian nationalism which is nonsense, 50 years before Zionism (when Jews numbered barely 3% and called themselves Palestinian) the Ottomans had to put down a separatist Palestinian national movement.

Palestians (including a tiny proportion who were Jews) lived in Palestine for near two milllenium and to suggest tehy were not a nation with nationalist ideology is pure fantasy.

Just so.

Arab nationalists are also Pan-Arabists in the Ottoman Arab provinces. They ad formed the Arab Congress.
They did not call themselves palestinians, that is a western term.

 

[montelatici]

Again this simply denies Palestinian nationalism which is nonsense, 50 years before Zionism (when Jews numbered barely 3% and called themselves Palestinian) the Ottomans had to put down a separatist Palestinian national movement.

Palestians (including a tiny proportion who were Jews) lived in Palestine for near two milllenium and to suggest tehy were not a nation with nationalist ideology is pure fantasy.

Just so.

Arab nationalists are also Pan-Arabists in the Ottoman Arab provinces. They ad formed the Arab Congress.
They did not call themselves palestinians, that is a western term.

They called themselves Palestinians and called the delegations to London "Palestinian Delegation" to differentiate themselves from the other Arab delegations from other Arab territories, Arabia, Egypt etc. This is referred to in the Jewish Virtual Library.

" and held this position in all congresses until 1928 and generally until his death; head and member of the Palestinian Delegations to London in the 1920-30s...."

Musa Qassem Al-Husseini (Basha) | Jewish Virtual Library

Please notice how we try to use unimpeachable (to Zionists) sources to make our points. And, before you continue to embarrass yourself, in English, when names of organizations are capitalized, it is because it is their official, not generic, name.

 

[Roudy]

Just so.

Then they must have had a leader of some description, Laws, a Police force to enforce the Laws, a currency, a capital city, a GDP, some form of government and treaties with their neighbours and trading partners. Should not be that difficult to find evidence of this as you can find evidence of other things less salient to Palestine's integrity.

Wonder how the Roma, the Basques, the Corisicans the Kurds, etc. feel about Phony's requirements to be a people?

Did they also call themselves by a different name as of the mid 1960's? No, so they can fulfill those requirements. You keep coming up with different BS excuses to avoid the truth.

Let's hear it from a former PLO Terrorist:

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

 

[Roudy]

Just so.

Arab nationalists are also Pan-Arabists in the Ottoman Arab provinces. They ad formed the Arab Congress.
They did not call themselves palestinians, that is a western term.

They called themselves Palestinians and called the delegations to London "Palestinian Delegation" to differentiate themselves from the other Arab delegations from other Arab territories, Arabia, Egypt etc. This is referred to in the Jewish Virtual Library.

" and held this position in all congresses until 1928 and generally until his death; head and member of the Palestinian Delegations to London in the 1920-30s...."

Musa Qassem Al-Husseini (Basha) | Jewish Virtual Library

Please notice how we try to use unimpeachable (to Zionists) sources to make our points. And, before you continue to embarrass yourself, in English, when names of organizations are capitalized, it is because it is their official, not generic, name.

Bullshit! Here's what "they" really thought:

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

What other Arabs declared after the Six-Day War:

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".
- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

 

[Roudy]

The Hussieni family? Bunch of terrorists and Arab Nazis. Read all 'bout it:

Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage

 

[aris2chat]

Just so.

Arab nationalists are also Pan-Arabists in the Ottoman Arab provinces. They ad formed the Arab Congress.
They did not call themselves palestinians, that is a western term.

They called themselves Palestinians and called the delegations to London "Palestinian Delegation" to differentiate themselves from the other Arab delegations from other Arab territories, Arabia, Egypt etc. This is referred to in the Jewish Virtual Library.

" and held this position in all congresses until 1928 and generally until his death; head and member of the Palestinian Delegations to London in the 1920-30s...."

Musa Qassem Al-Husseini (Basha) | Jewish Virtual Library

Please notice how we try to use unimpeachable (to Zionists) sources to make our points. And, before you continue to embarrass yourself, in English, when names of organizations are capitalized, it is because it is their official, not generic, name.

It was the Arab Congresses as it was not inclusive of all people in the Palestinian Mandate.

>>Seven congresses convened by Palestinian Arab politicians between 1919 and 1928 to oppose pro-Zionist British policies and gain independence.<<

Palestinian was the mandate, not all the arab people. Ottomans did not have a sanjuk call palestine. The term was not eastern, but western. It was a term given by the Romans to three parts of the south Levant. It was used by the west to designate an area not a singular place with specific borders. The mandate lumped a section of the Ottoman empire and named it Palestinian mandate. They were not going to call it the jewish or Israeli mandate. They use a more neutral term that the arabs could accept.
The british knew the mandate would be divided up and they would decide how.
After the fall of the Hashemite in saudi, land was given to the sons, though they had no particular ties to their new kingdoms. It did not work out well for Faisal in Iraq or Syria. Abdullah did better in trans-Jordan (more than half of palestine).

 

[Roudy]

Arab nationalists are also Pan-Arabists in the Ottoman Arab provinces. They ad formed the Arab Congress.
They did not call themselves palestinians, that is a western term.

They called themselves Palestinians and called the delegations to London "Palestinian Delegation" to differentiate themselves from the other Arab delegations from other Arab territories, Arabia, Egypt etc. This is referred to in the Jewish Virtual Library.

" and held this position in all congresses until 1928 and generally until his death; head and member of the Palestinian Delegations to London in the 1920-30s...."

Musa Qassem Al-Husseini (Basha) | Jewish Virtual Library

Please notice how we try to use unimpeachable (to Zionists) sources to make our points. And, before you continue to embarrass yourself, in English, when names of organizations are capitalized, it is because it is their official, not generic, name.

It was the Arab Congresses as it was not inclusive of all people in the Palestinian Mandate.

>>Seven congresses convened by Palestinian Arab politicians between 1919 and 1928 to oppose pro-Zionist British policies and gain independence.<<

Palestinian was the mandate, not all the arab people. Ottomans did not have a sanjuk call palestine. The term was not eastern, but western. It was a term given by the Romans to three parts of the south Levant. It was used by the west to designate an area not a singular place with specific borders. The mandate lumped a section of the Ottoman empire and named it Palestinian mandate. They were not going to call it the jewish or Israeli mandate. They use a more neutral term that the arabs could accept.
The british knew the mandate would be divided up and they would decide how.
After the fall of the Hashemite in saudi, land was given to the sons, though they had no particular ties to their new kingdoms. It did not work out well for Faisal in Iraq or Syria. Abdullah did better in trans-Jordan (more than half of palestine).

There ya go, more of MOHOMOD's unimpeachable "facts". Ha ha ha.

 

[montelatici]

They called themselves Palestinians and called the delegations to London "Palestinian Delegation" to differentiate themselves from the other Arab delegations from other Arab territories, Arabia, Egypt etc. This is referred to in the Jewish Virtual Library.

" and held this position in all congresses until 1928 and generally until his death; head and member of the Palestinian Delegations to London in the 1920-30s...."

Musa Qassem Al-Husseini (Basha) | Jewish Virtual Library

Please notice how we try to use unimpeachable (to Zionists) sources to make our points. And, before you continue to embarrass yourself, in English, when names of organizations are capitalized, it is because it is their official, not generic, name.

It was the Arab Congresses as it was not inclusive of all people in the Palestinian Mandate.

>>Seven congresses convened by Palestinian Arab politicians between 1919 and 1928 to oppose pro-Zionist British policies and gain independence.<<

Palestinian was the mandate, not all the arab people. Ottomans did not have a sanjuk call palestine. The term was not eastern, but western. It was a term given by the Romans to three parts of the south Levant. It was used by the west to designate an area not a singular place with specific borders. The mandate lumped a section of the Ottoman empire and named it Palestinian mandate. They were not going to call it the jewish or Israeli mandate. They use a more neutral term that the arabs could accept.
The british knew the mandate would be divided up and they would decide how.
After the fall of the Hashemite in saudi, land was given to the sons, though they had no particular ties to their new kingdoms. It did not work out well for Faisal in Iraq or Syria. Abdullah did better in trans-Jordan (more than half of palestine).

There ya go, more of MOHOMOD's unimpeachable "facts". Ha ha ha.

Why do you insist on making my point. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that's for sure. Of course the Palestinian Delegation was not representing all the Arab people, they, as the name implies, represented the Palestinians.

 

[Roudy]

It was the Arab Congresses as it was not inclusive of all people in the Palestinian Mandate.

>>Seven congresses convened by Palestinian Arab politicians between 1919 and 1928 to oppose pro-Zionist British policies and gain independence.<<

Palestinian was the mandate, not all the arab people. Ottomans did not have a sanjuk call palestine. The term was not eastern, but western. It was a term given by the Romans to three parts of the south Levant. It was used by the west to designate an area not a singular place with specific borders. The mandate lumped a section of the Ottoman empire and named it Palestinian mandate. They were not going to call it the jewish or Israeli mandate. They use a more neutral term that the arabs could accept.
The british knew the mandate would be divided up and they would decide how.
After the fall of the Hashemite in saudi, land was given to the sons, though they had no particular ties to their new kingdoms. It did not work out well for Faisal in Iraq or Syria. Abdullah did better in trans-Jordan (more than half of palestine).

There ya go, more of MOHOMOD's unimpeachable "facts". Ha ha ha.

Why do you insist on making my point. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that's for sure. Of course the Palestinian Delegation was not representing all the Arab people, they, as the name implies, represented the Palestinians.

Why do you insist on constantly making a fool of yourself? You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig, but it will still be a pig.

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

What other Arabs declared after the Six-Day War:

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".
- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

 

[aris2chat]

It was the Arab Congresses as it was not inclusive of all people in the Palestinian Mandate.

>>Seven congresses convened by Palestinian Arab politicians between 1919 and 1928 to oppose pro-Zionist British policies and gain independence.<<

Palestinian was the mandate, not all the arab people. Ottomans did not have a sanjuk call palestine. The term was not eastern, but western. It was a term given by the Romans to three parts of the south Levant. It was used by the west to designate an area not a singular place with specific borders. The mandate lumped a section of the Ottoman empire and named it Palestinian mandate. They were not going to call it the jewish or Israeli mandate. They use a more neutral term that the arabs could accept.
The british knew the mandate would be divided up and they would decide how.
After the fall of the Hashemite in saudi, land was given to the sons, though they had no particular ties to their new kingdoms. It did not work out well for Faisal in Iraq or Syria. Abdullah did better in trans-Jordan (more than half of palestine).

There ya go, more of MOHOMOD's unimpeachable "facts". Ha ha ha.

Why do you insist on making my point. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that's for sure. Of course the Palestinian Delegation was not representing all the Arab people, they, as the name implies, represented the Palestinians.

They did not represent the jews who had lived for centuries in the region or those who have immigrated.
Did not necessarily represent all the christians either (Greek, Armenian, Ethiopian, etc.)

 

[montelatici]

Many of the delegations, were Christians and were part of the Muslim-Christian Associations of Palestine:

Muslim-Christian Associations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Zionist immigrants were not represented because they intended to displace the Christians and Muslims.

 

[montelatici]

There ya go, more of MOHOMOD's unimpeachable "facts". Ha ha ha.

Why do you insist on making my point. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that's for sure. Of course the Palestinian Delegation was not representing all the Arab people, they, as the name implies, represented the Palestinians.

Why do you insist on constantly making a fool of yourself? You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig, but it will still be a pig.

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

What other Arabs declared after the Six-Day War:

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".
- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

Now the Zionists invented the word Palestine according to you. Is there no end to your absurd assertions. Again, not the sharpest knife.

 

[Auldhippy]

Nope. It means exactly what it says. The Jews were to get their own nation which they are in charge of. The Arabs got pissed off and started attacking the Jews and committing massacres like the Hebron massacre, like the savages they've always been. Nothing new.

Nowhere does it say that the Jews were to get their own state. And, the fact that the creation of a Jewish state "might" prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities, it was never in the cards under the terms of the Mandate. Palestinians citizenship was being given to Jews as they arrived from Europe so all people Jews, Christians and Muslims were to be Palestinians once independence was granted under the Mandate.

The Partition, which created a Jewish state with 45% of the people being of the "existing non-Jewish communities" contravened the terms of the Mandate by putting those non-Jews in a situation which might prejudice their civil and religious rights. Which, as we know, it did.

>>Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.<<

Pure revisionism, the full text of article 80:


Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.


Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System

& It most certainly is not common knowledge that "all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State", that is just a blatant and easily disprioven lie

 

[montelatici]

Nowhere does it say that the Jews were to get their own state. And, the fact that the creation of a Jewish state "might" prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities, it was never in the cards under the terms of the Mandate. Palestinians citizenship was being given to Jews as they arrived from Europe so all people Jews, Christians and Muslims were to be Palestinians once independence was granted under the Mandate.

The Partition, which created a Jewish state with 45% of the people being of the "existing non-Jewish communities" contravened the terms of the Mandate by putting those non-Jews in a situation which might prejudice their civil and religious rights. Which, as we know, it did.

>>Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.<<

Pure revisionism, the full text of article 80:


Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.


Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System

& It most certainly is not common knowledge that "all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State", that is just a blatant and easily disprioven lie

"It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State"

Rubbish. I might add that the preamble specifically negates that silly assertion when it recognizes the existence of the non-Jewish communities and prohibits any action that "might" prejudice the rights of these communities. The word "might" is clear in that even if there is just a small probability that an action might prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jewish communities, it could not be taken. And, putting non-Jews in a state where the Jews would be 55% of the population, as the UN partition did, certainly might have prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews, which we know it did. So the Partition contravened the Mandate on a few levels.

"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,"

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

>>Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.<<

Pure revisionism, the full text of article 80:


Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.


Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System

& It most certainly is not common knowledge that "all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State", that is just a blatant and easily disprioven lie

"It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State"

Rubbish. I might add that the preamble specifically negates that silly assertion when it recognizes the existence of the non-Jewish communities and prohibits any action that "might" prejudice the rights of these communities. The word "might" is clear in that even if there is just a small probability that an action might prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jewish communities, it could not be taken. And, putting non-Jews in a state where the Jews would be 55% of the population, as the UN partition did, certainly might have prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews, which we know it did. So the Partition contravened the Mandate on a few levels.

"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,"

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

And nothing did.

 

[montelatici]

Pure revisionism, the full text of article 80:


Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.


Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System

& It most certainly is not common knowledge that "all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State", that is just a blatant and easily disprioven lie

"It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State"

Rubbish. I might add that the preamble specifically negates that silly assertion when it recognizes the existence of the non-Jewish communities and prohibits any action that "might" prejudice the rights of these communities. The word "might" is clear in that even if there is just a small probability that an action might prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jewish communities, it could not be taken. And, putting non-Jews in a state where the Jews would be 55% of the population, as the UN partition did, certainly might have prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews, which we know it did. So the Partition contravened the Mandate on a few levels.

"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,"

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

And nothing did.

Of course the partition "might" have prejudiced the civil rights of the non-Jewish communities that remained in the Jewish part of the partition. And it certainly did. You are aware of the fact that most of the non-Jewish community was displaced. Can't prejudice civil rights any more than that.