Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[danielpalos]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

It was not Palestinian land. It was Mandate for Palestine land, and some was to go to the Jewish People, some to the Arabs (not yet calling themselves Palestinians )

By all means skip the part where the Jordanians expelled all the Jews from Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH Quarter of Jerusalem, just as they had done in 1925 when they were "given"
all of TranJordan when they were not part of the Mandate for Palestine.


Now, when was Israel vacationing in Gaza?

Palestine is not generating enough revenue; they need a Dey.

 

[USAF 2023]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

But they did win land from Jordan. You say it was not Jordan’s land to lose? Tell us please who Israel was at war with? If Jordan still had control over the W. Bank and E. Jerusalem would not be hearing about “ occupation”

 

[USAF 2023]

The now called Palestinians, can sit at a table as they were supposed to since the Oslo Accords, and negotiate with Israel.

There is nothing to negotiate. Israel wants the Palestinians to negotiate away their inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are not negotiable. Any treaty or agreement that violates the rights of the people is invalid.

That “ All or nothing” Mentality so they get nothing. The Palestinians know ahead of time that Israel isn’t going to give in to all demands.

If

 

[toomuchtime_]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

Unless you are talking about private property rights, there is no such thing as Palestinian land. The land Jordan captured was land that had been abandoned by the UN when it ended the Mandate in the Partition resolution and at that time, Jordan had as much right to the land as anyone else, and Israel and Jordan have settled their differences arising from the earlier wars so Israel now is the only country with a legitimate claim to the land.

There is no rational basis in history, logic or law for the Palestinians to claim the land is theirs. However, just as Israel has been willing to barter land it captured in the earlier wars for peace with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, so Israel has offered to give some of this land to the Palestinians in return for peace, but there is no political entity among the Palestinian leaderships that can credibly offer peace to Israel on any terms. That is why the status quo is the only viable option for Israel and the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.

Please explain how Jordan had any right to any more parts of the Mandate. Where were the Hashemites mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine of 1920?

Also explain, what right Egypt had to any part of the Mandate for Palestine after the UN Partition and the Declaration of Independence by Israel?

lol Well, if we want to go that route, what right did the League of Nations and then the UN have to any of the land, which had been captured from the Ottoman Empire? However, if we don't question the legitimacy of the Mandate, then when the UN dissolved it, as it did in the Partition resolution, no one had any special right to that land and so Jordan had as much right to it as anyone else.

 

[RoccoR]

Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is very faulty logic.

The use of "colonialism" in this case only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the claims, the environment, and the ties of the settlers to the colonial power.

OH, that is ridiculous. You cannot use "Occupation" as a rule. US Forces were in both Korea and Europe for as long. As a matter of fact, they are still there. The presence of foreign troops does not preclude development.

But settler colonialism does.

(COMMENT)

Even so, the presense of the settlers does not mean that an adverse effect on the economy is inevitable.

It is the childish confrontation by the Arab Palestinians that create the economic pressures that further demonstrate that the Arab Palestinians cannot form a working government that can induce trade and stand alone within the meaning of Article 22.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is Subterfuge, Disinformation, and Propaganda. Changing the name of the instrumentality (Border Police 'v' IDF) taking all the measures in his power to restore/maintain and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, ✪⇒ changes the character of the public order and safety being maintained under Article 43.

BUT the wearing of body armor does not grant the perpetrator special permission or right to assault a police officer

Indeed, if it is a local police officer. But these are invading foreign troops. I think that is a different legal scenario.

(COMMENT)

No matter the source of maintenance, "public order and safety" is still "public order and safety;" whether it is administered by an Angel or a Demon.

Attacking the police is a demonstrated lack of respect for the public order and safety for the entire community.

And it defenatelyshow that the parental guidance needs much to be desired.

Most Resepctfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hum. Have you not read the Mandate for Palestine?

The entire territory was set aside for the NATIONal homeland for the Jewish people.

There was no division made. And there was no other peoples mentioned.

Now, you could very well argue that this was an egregious oversight and needs to be corrected. I wouldn't argue with you. The WAY to correct the oversight is to negotiate for peace and sovereignty for both peoples in a way that is fair and reasonable and NOT in a way which insists on narratives and propaganda.

You ******* shoot Palestinian children in the head for throwing a rock! Don't even talk to me about what's fair and reasonable.

Theoretically then, you would fully support Israeli citizens entering Gaza through the fence with wire cutters, yes?

You would agree that Gaza has no right to defend her border with Israel and that Israelis should be able to pass freely between Israel and Gaza?

And that would include Israelis who make threats against the lives of Gazan citizens, right?

Israelis used to vacation in Gaza. It was Israel who slammed the door.

Do gives us some more details about those vacations in Gaza.
When was the door slammed?

Remember, before the first intifada/Oslo the borders were virtually open.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was Mandate for Palestine land,

The Mandate was merely a trustee. It had no land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is very faulty logic.

The use of "colonialism" in this case only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the claims, the environment, and the ties of the settlers to the colonial power.

OH, that is ridiculous. You cannot use "Occupation" as a rule. US Forces were in both Korea and Europe for as long. As a matter of fact, they are still there. The presence of foreign troops does not preclude development.

But settler colonialism does.

(COMMENT)

Even so, the presense of the settlers does not mean that an adverse effect on the economy is inevitable.

It is the childish confrontation by the Arab Palestinians that create the economic pressures that further demonstrate that the Arab Palestinians cannot form a working government that can induce trade and stand alone within the meaning of Article 22.

Most Respectfully,
R

From what do yo base your assertions?

 

[P F Tinmore]

ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,

Stealing land and killing people is ensuring public order and safety?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

Unless you are talking about private property rights, there is no such thing as Palestinian land. The land Jordan captured was land that had been abandoned by the UN when it ended the Mandate in the Partition resolution and at that time, Jordan had as much right to the land as anyone else, and Israel and Jordan have settled their differences arising from the earlier wars so Israel now is the only country with a legitimate claim to the land.

There is no rational basis in history, logic or law for the Palestinians to claim the land is theirs. However, just as Israel has been willing to barter land it captured in the earlier wars for peace with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, so Israel has offered to give some of this land to the Palestinians in return for peace, but there is no political entity among the Palestinian leaderships that can credibly offer peace to Israel on any terms. That is why the status quo is the only viable option for Israel and the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.

Please explain how Jordan had any right to any more parts of the Mandate. Where were the Hashemites mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine of 1920?

Also explain, what right Egypt had to any part of the Mandate for Palestine after the UN Partition and the Declaration of Independence by Israel?

lol Well, if we want to go that route, what right did the League of Nations and then the UN have to any of the land, which had been captured from the Ottoman Empire? However, if we don't question the legitimacy of the Mandate, then when the UN dissolved it, as it did in the Partition resolution, no one had any special right to that land and so Jordan had as much right to it as anyone else.

Your route is to rewrite the Mandates, all of them, and rewrite history.

Noted.

If the Allied victorious forces of WWI did not have any rights to any and all of the Ottoman Empire, than none of the other three Mandates are valid.

Goodbye Iraq

Goodbye Syria

Goodbye Lebanon


Now we can go back to the topic of this thread about the Arab Palestinians needing to move on and accept a Peace treaty with Israel in this day and age.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

Unless you are talking about private property rights, there is no such thing as Palestinian land. The land Jordan captured was land that had been abandoned by the UN when it ended the Mandate in the Partition resolution and at that time, Jordan had as much right to the land as anyone else, and Israel and Jordan have settled their differences arising from the earlier wars so Israel now is the only country with a legitimate claim to the land.

There is no rational basis in history, logic or law for the Palestinians to claim the land is theirs. However, just as Israel has been willing to barter land it captured in the earlier wars for peace with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, so Israel has offered to give some of this land to the Palestinians in return for peace, but there is no political entity among the Palestinian leaderships that can credibly offer peace to Israel on any terms. That is why the status quo is the only viable option for Israel and the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.

Please explain how Jordan had any right to any more parts of the Mandate. Where were the Hashemites mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine of 1920?

Also explain, what right Egypt had to any part of the Mandate for Palestine after the UN Partition and the Declaration of Independence by Israel?

lol Well, if we want to go that route, what right did the League of Nations and then the UN have to any of the land, which had been captured from the Ottoman Empire? However, if we don't question the legitimacy of the Mandate, then when the UN dissolved it, as it did in the Partition resolution, no one had any special right to that land and so Jordan had as much right to it as anyone else.

Your route is to rewrite the Mandates, all of them, and rewrite history.

Noted.

If the Allied victorious forces of WWI did not have any rights to any and all of the Ottoman Empire, than none of the other three Mandates are valid.

Goodbye Iraq

Goodbye Syria

Goodbye Lebanon


Now we can go back to the topic of this thread about the Arab Palestinians needing to move on and accept a Peace treaty with Israel in this day and age.

The land was passed to the inhabitants of those lands including Palestine.

 

[Sixties Fan]

It was Mandate for Palestine land,

The Mandate was merely a trustee. It had no land.

As I said before, if the Mandate for Palestine had no validity, neither had the ones for Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Hum. Have you not read the Mandate for Palestine?

The entire territory was set aside for the NATIONal homeland for the Jewish people.

There was no division made. And there was no other peoples mentioned.

Now, you could very well argue that this was an egregious oversight and needs to be corrected. I wouldn't argue with you. The WAY to correct the oversight is to negotiate for peace and sovereignty for both peoples in a way that is fair and reasonable and NOT in a way which insists on narratives and propaganda.

You ******* shoot Palestinian children in the head for throwing a rock! Don't even talk to me about what's fair and reasonable.

Theoretically then, you would fully support Israeli citizens entering Gaza through the fence with wire cutters, yes?

You would agree that Gaza has no right to defend her border with Israel and that Israelis should be able to pass freely between Israel and Gaza?

And that would include Israelis who make threats against the lives of Gazan citizens, right?

Israelis used to vacation in Gaza. It was Israel who slammed the door.

Do gives us some more details about those vacations in Gaza.
When was the door slammed?

Remember, before the first intifada/Oslo the borders were virtually open.

Too bad Arafat did not have the brains NOT TO start the intifadas and that way putting an end for the people in Gaza having good jobs in Israel, and education, etc.

They are on their own now, except for the health care which Israel will still allow.

That is what happens to those who chose war.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep throwing that out there to sidetrack the question at hand and the issue under discussion.

It was Mandate for Palestine land,

The Mandate was merely a trustee. It had no land.

(COMMENT)

When people use the term "Mandate" as has been done in this case, they mean the "territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied" as given its meaning by the Palestine Order in Council.

Don't sidetrack the issue.

The "territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied" was derived from the agreements between the Allied Powers as was passed-on by Part I (Territories) Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. There was no obligation to, agreement with, or negotiation with Arab Palestinians; they were not a party to the Treaty.

And to get technical, the "Mandate" was an official commission. In those days the Mandatory would be what we would call today, the Agent with the obligation. A "trustee" is the agency given the obligation to holds property, authority, or a position of trust and responsibility for the benefit of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

Unless you are talking about private property rights, there is no such thing as Palestinian land. The land Jordan captured was land that had been abandoned by the UN when it ended the Mandate in the Partition resolution and at that time, Jordan had as much right to the land as anyone else, and Israel and Jordan have settled their differences arising from the earlier wars so Israel now is the only country with a legitimate claim to the land.

There is no rational basis in history, logic or law for the Palestinians to claim the land is theirs. However, just as Israel has been willing to barter land it captured in the earlier wars for peace with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, so Israel has offered to give some of this land to the Palestinians in return for peace, but there is no political entity among the Palestinian leaderships that can credibly offer peace to Israel on any terms. That is why the status quo is the only viable option for Israel and the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.

Please explain how Jordan had any right to any more parts of the Mandate. Where were the Hashemites mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine of 1920?

Also explain, what right Egypt had to any part of the Mandate for Palestine after the UN Partition and the Declaration of Independence by Israel?

lol Well, if we want to go that route, what right did the League of Nations and then the UN have to any of the land, which had been captured from the Ottoman Empire? However, if we don't question the legitimacy of the Mandate, then when the UN dissolved it, as it did in the Partition resolution, no one had any special right to that land and so Jordan had as much right to it as anyone else.

Your route is to rewrite the Mandates, all of them, and rewrite history.

Noted.

If the Allied victorious forces of WWI did not have any rights to any and all of the Ottoman Empire, than none of the other three Mandates are valid.

Goodbye Iraq

Goodbye Syria

Goodbye Lebanon


Now we can go back to the topic of this thread about the Arab Palestinians needing to move on and accept a Peace treaty with Israel in this day and age.

The land was passed to the inhabitants of those lands including Palestine.

Which includes the indigenous Jewish People/Nation of the land of Israel, aka, Palestine who were living in it, and even those who were not at the time living on it.
Why? Because they are the Indigenous people and they legally won the right to recreate their sovereign nation.


But you refuse to recognize them as such, and refuse to recognize what happens when a Power loses a war, in this case - the Ottomans.

You do not like it, tough.
You do not accept it, tough.

Israel is not going anywhere, not now and not ever again.

The Arab "Palestinians" will get used to it if only their leaders stop teaching them hatred and only Muslim Power over the Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And to get technical, the "Mandate" was an official commission. In those days the Mandatory would be what we would call today, the Agent with the obligation. A "trustee" is the agency given the obligation to holds property, authority, or a position of trust and responsibility for the benefit of the Allied Powers.

The land was held in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants. That would be the citizens of that Territory.

 

[Sixties Fan]

And to get technical, the "Mandate" was an official commission. In those days the Mandatory would be what we would call today, the Agent with the obligation. A "trustee" is the agency given the obligation to holds property, authority, or a position of trust and responsibility for the benefit of the Allied Powers.

The land was held in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants. That would be the citizens of that Territory.

And that is exactly what happened.

By 1937 the British decided to Partition between the two groups of people on the land.

The indigenous Jews and the Arabs who were living there.
The Jews agreed, the Arabs rejected it.

You keep making issues where there are none.

In 1947, the Arabs rejected it again.

End of story.

 

[USAF 2023]

And to get technical, the "Mandate" was an official commission. In those days the Mandatory would be what we would call today, the Agent with the obligation. A "trustee" is the agency given the obligation to holds property, authority, or a position of trust and responsibility for the benefit of the Allied Powers.

The land was held in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants. That would be the citizens of that Territory.

And that is exactly what happened.

By 1937 the British decided to Partition between the two groups of people on the land.

The indigenous Jews and the Arabs who were living there.
The Jews agreed, the Arabs rejected it.

You keep making issues where there are none.

In 1947, the Arabs rejected it again.

End of story.

In 1967 the Arabs rejected it again,
End of story.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The assertions!

First → The use of the term "colonialism" is derived from the General Assembly monitoring the implementation of the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/15/1514 (XV) Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 14 December 1960. The Special UN Committee on "Decolonization" annually review those areas in the world that might be in a colonial situation --- or --- what is technically called "Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). There is no territory in the entire Middle East that meets that criteria for which the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" applies.

​

Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is very faulty logic.

The use of "colonialism" in this case only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the claims, the environment, and the ties of the settlers to the colonial power.

OH, that is ridiculous. You cannot use "Occupation" as a rule. US Forces were in both Korea and Europe for as long. As a matter of fact, they are still there. The presence of foreign troops does not preclude development.

But settler colonialism does.

(COMMENT)

Even so, the presence of the settlers does not mean that an adverse effect on the economy is inevitable.

It is the childish confrontation by the Arab Palestinians that create the economic pressures that further demonstrate that the Arab Palestinians cannot form a working government that can induce trade and stand-alone within the meaning of Article 22.

Most Respectfully,
R

From what do you base your assertions?

(COMMENT)

Don't tell me that with all the Donor Nation needs the Arab Palestinians claim, that you are going to argue that they can, in any possible way, be considered a territory that can stand alone. Hell, they can't even decide who is the ruling party, let alone even come close to operating under the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Remember, it has been a long time since a nation has claimed it has the right to storm the borders of another nation.

Most Respectfully,
R