Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,388
Reaction score
4,914
Points
1,130
After the termination of the Mandate, Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) continue to be a legal entity. Why? (RHETORICAL) It will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.
When the Mandate left the UN ducked out. What then would be Palestine's status? Does that mean that Palestine was up for grabs?

Links please.
I see part of the problem you’re having, “The Mandate” was not a physical entity as you seem to imagine it. It was an administrative order. You can find the details here: The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

What was “Palestine’s” status before the Turks released all rights and title? Well, there was no “Palestine” under the Ottoman Empire. I would suggest you look at YouTube videos for a comprehensive description.

Anything on those “new states” conspiracy theory?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,660
Reaction score
2,872
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: We've discussed this many times as well.
UN Charter • Chapter XII • Article 77 (1a)

The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:​
a. territories now held under mandate;

→ P F Tinmore, There is your answer, and here is your link. You can Stp here. I don't want to confuse you.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​
→ FOR: et al,
(COMMENT)
The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high. The UK was trying to recover from a devastating war and the Arab Palestinians became an Albatros around the neck of the British people. The British came to the conclusion that they did not need the additional burden of the Mandate Palestine and the Arab Palestinians no longer deserved their protection or support. It was determined that the funds to help Mandate Palestine would be better served rebuilding England. "In fact rationing did not end completely until 1954, nearly a decade after the end of the war, and the UK was the last country to end rationing."​
The Arab League was quite lucky from the standpoint. The Allied Powers of the world were tired. It had just finished WWII (for which the Arab Palestinians contributed notion to the war effort) and were not eager to fight another war in the Middle East (politically it would be a hard sell). Instead, they opted to go through the Cease Fire/Armistice options. Many felt an Arab is an Arab (all the same). Since the Arab League failed to achieve their hidden agenda and the State of Israel was still intact (larger if you count the territory under their effective control), a working Armistice was a much more viable political option.​
{Plots within Plots}
While the Arab Palestinians might have thought that the Arab League was involved for some benevolent reason → like to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres → the story told by King Abdullah was just a bit of deception and cover for the political concealment of the true agenda.
Plot with Plots.png
The practical outcome was that Egypt secured the Gaza Strip for themselves and Jordan secured the West Bank and Jerusalem for themselves. The Arab Palestinians were disarmed and got nothing. It was taken by the Arab League. While Egypt's plan to raise a puppet regime ultimately failed (the bogus All Palestine Government), Jordan's plan to assimilate the West Bank and Jerusalem became a reality. King Abdullah wanted to imitate his father (The Sharif of Mecca) by becoming the Lord Protector of Jerusalem. King Abdullah was thinking of the Prestige that would bring to his family.
Islamic Information Portal said:
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordanian King Abdullah II have signed an agreement to “defend Jerusalem and its holy sites,” the Ma’an news agency reported on Sunday afternoon. The agreement, he said, confirmed both Jordan’s role as protector of the city’s holy sites and “Palestinian sovereignty over all of Palestine, including its capital East Jerusalem. A statement from Jordan’s royal palace confirmed that Abbas has committed to a special Jordanian role in caring for holy shrines in Jerusalem. The move is symbolic — Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel recognizes Jordan’s role as custodian of Christian and Muslim shrines in the city, which Israel captured from the kingdom in the Six-Day War. The Palestinians still have no official say on Jerusalem. The fate of the city and its shrines is to be determined in final status talks with Israel, which broke down two years ago. The statement said the agreement signed Sunday between Abbas and Abdullah confirms a verbal deal brokered in 1924.
Islamic Information Portal said:
SOURCE: Abbas and Abdullah sign Jerusalem protection pactBy Yifa Yaakov and AP / 2 Apr 2013 • Republished Monday 15 February 2021 \ 03 Rajab 1442 H​
Protector of Jerusalem.png
But in the end, by 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem for the same reason the British left Mandate Palestine. The Arab Palestinians were simply was not worth the expense and effort. In the back of their mind was still the memory of Black September and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) attempt on the Kingdom. Even today, the set of International Donors are gradually dwindling away. For the last 20 years, the Arab Palestinians, → even with the massive infusion of donor dollars, the Arab Palestinians have made no tangible headway towards peace, stabilization, and infrastructure development. If anything, they have reiterated the Arab Palestinian mantra from 1948: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. It is as clear today as it has been for the last half-century. And that is why they will (ultimately) fail.
1611604183365.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.
Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,388
Reaction score
4,914
Points
1,130
The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.
Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.
You make the mistake of attempting to re-write history assuming that your flowery projections would be fulfilled. You also seek to sidestep the actual history of Arab-Moslem intransigence, poor decision making and refusal to accept the repercussions of inaction.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.
Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.
You make the mistake of attempting to re-write history assuming that your flowery projections would be fulfilled. You also seek to sidestep the actual history of Arab-Moslem intransigence, poor decision making and refusal to accept the repercussions of inaction.
What did I say that was incorrect?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,660
Reaction score
2,872
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian Existence
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.
Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.
(COMMENT)

Once the UN was activated, the Mandatory was answerable to the UN International Trusteeship System. The UN Activated in 1945. That would be three years before the termination. At the time f the termination, the UN was already the driving political body. And the principal nations behind were the five permanent members of the Security Council, all of whom were the Principle Allied Powers who had fought the war.

One of the key features that were desire:
Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant said:
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.
SOURCE: League of Nations Covenant
Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Arab Palestinians made it clear that they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis as the Jewish Agency.

On a similar note, the UN Palestine Commission sent an invitation to the Arab Higher Committee in January 1948 to join in the establishment of self-governing institutions. The response was as expected.

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION
AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING
DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

It is NOT the fault of the British Administration that the Arab Palestinians intentionally failed to cooperate in the tutelage or participation in self-government. I realize that it is not an uncommon response for the pro-Palestinian camp to play the part of the victim. But clearly, on this matter, it is simply NOT THE CASE.

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,388
Reaction score
4,914
Points
1,130
The Mandatory did not just duck-out. The British left because the cost of doing business in the region was simply too high.
Actually I said that the UN ducked out. Of course Britain ducked out too. They created more problems for themselve than they knew how to handle. If they would have followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of there in 10 years or so. Instead they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit. They started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and run.
You make the mistake of attempting to re-write history assuming that your flowery projections would be fulfilled. You also seek to sidestep the actual history of Arab-Moslem intransigence, poor decision making and refusal to accept the repercussions of inaction.
What did I say that was incorrect?
Most everything.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.
What were the terms of that attempt?
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
The Hunger for Justice Ep. 5: The Power of Seed in Occupied Land - Vivien Sansour w/ Dan Saladino

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
Conversation with Larissa Sansour | Arab Film Fest Collab 2020

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
Salma Karmi-Ayyoub Highlights: From Balfour to Boris Johnson Event

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
PALCONV2020: Black and Palestinian Liberation: Struggling Hand in Hand

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
Labor Day, Annexation & Biden? With Phyllis Bennis and Diana Buttu

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,079
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,815
Diana Buttu & Gideon Levy on Israeli Settlements, Kerry, Military Aid & End of Two-State Solution

 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,660
Reaction score
2,872
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Incitement of America against Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is a bit of a mixed bag of political snippets. The purpose of such productions is to infect the American public against Israel.

Diana Buttu & Gideon Levy on Israeli Settlements, Kerry, Military Aid & End of Two-State Solution
(COMMENT)

The Israeli effective control over the West Bank is actually an outcome of Arab Palestinian Hostility. Had the Arab Palestinians adopted a peaceful posture and political stability in the days following the Oslo Accords
(the mid-1990s), the Israelis would have seen no reason to continue Civil Administration over the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Since that time, the Israelis, at some risk to their security, unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The political experience was to see if, given autonomy (versus a security crack-down), would the Arab Palestinians actually assume a peaceful posture. Well, the answer is (a resounding) NO! If anything, giving the Arab Palestinians autonomy actually sets the condition for greater violence (not a peaceful improvement). Under what political evidence, do we see where an Israeli relinquishment of control over the West Bank would result in an improvement??? There is none. No evidence at all. What did we see unfold in the aftermath of the withdrawal (unilateral disengagement) from the Gaza Strip → is the exact opposite. As the Brooking Institute once said: "Gaza Withdrawal’s Aftermath is Key." If the Israels unilaterally withdraw from Area "C" - what will be the outcome. The void will be filled with every kind of Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters from all over the immediate region. And there is the key. If the Israelis release their grip on the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, there is no reasonable expectation that it will add to the peaceful development in the territory. Rather, it will more than likely, turn out to be a larger mirror image of the Gaza Strip.

Then, what happens?
(The Pinocchio Test)

No country is going to underwrite the outcome if the Israelis just jump up and withdraw from the territories. There will be no guarantor for peace. Because, while politically everyone would like to encourage Arab Palestinian autonomy, in reality, no one
(the US, not the quartet, the EU, not the Arab League, not NATO, etc) is going to act as the insurer for peace (because no one has that kind of faith in the Arab Palestinians). Israel would begin the planning and execution of a withdrawal tomorrow if (and only if) the major players (the US, not the quartet, the EU, not the Arab League, not NATO, etc) would act as the guarantors smite the Arab Palestinians, and strike with a firm blow against the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters should the West Bank begin a new campaign against Israel. But again, none of the political players have that kind of faith in the Arab Palestinians. And Israel does have that kind of faith in the major players involved in the peace process.

What might work better is → if the donor community help for the withdrawal of the Israeli settlers
(rather than throw away their funding on the Arab Palestinians) → to relocate them into a new area of 100,000 family dwellings in the irrigated Negev plot → complete with a total utility infrastructure AND pay for the reactivation of the Spetsnaz with a complement of GRU/GU to act as the security surveillance and maintenance for peace.

At first, this may sound ultra-expensive
(and maybe a bit draconian). But we must remember, the international community has been donating funds in all sorts of ways to the Israeli - Arab Palestinian Conflict Resolution effort for more than half a century, with no appreciable success. If we shift the paradigm and do something totally different, the impact and outcome might be just as different.

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top