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

[RoccoR]

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

The terms of the trusteeship determine the requirements. Your statement is well over simplified.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate to the British was agreed upon by the Allied Powers.

The Mandate (in the name of the Allied Powers) did not communicate to the inhabitants a promise or obligation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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.

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

 

[Sixties Fan]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

You are taking over the thread again, to discuss 100 years ago

Discuss the tittle of the thread:

saudi-prince-maybe-the-palestinians-shouldve-taken-the-deals-they-were-offered

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

You are taking over the thread again, to discuss 100 years ago

Discuss the tittle of the thread:

saudi-prince-maybe-the-palestinians-shouldve-taken-the-deals-they-were-offered

I was just responding to a stupid post.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

That’s the same, tired cut and paste meme you dump in most every thread. Really, sweetie, aren’t you the least bit embarrassed at your cut and paste slogans being thoroughly refuted?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

You are taking over the thread again, to discuss 100 years ago

Discuss the tittle of the thread:

saudi-prince-maybe-the-palestinians-shouldve-taken-the-deals-they-were-offered

I was just responding to a stupid post.

No, you were just responding stupidly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

Link?

Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli shit.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

Link?

Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli shit.

You make a false statement and then demand a link to show it is false?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

That’s the same, tired cut and paste meme you dump in most every thread.

Indeed, and you are still arguing against actual documents.

Zionist mentality.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

Link?

Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli shit.

You make a false statement and then demand a link to show it is false?

I want a link for you to prove your bullshit to be true.

If you can't prove it, don't say it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

Link?

Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli shit.

You make a false statement and then demand a link to show it is false?

I want a link for you to prove your bullshit to be true.

If you can't prove it, don't say it.

It was your bullshit I was objecting to.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

That’s the same, tired cut and paste meme you dump in most every thread.

Indeed, and you are still arguing against actual documents.

Zionist mentality.

Of course, dear.

Indeed, I’m not arguing against “actual documents” that exist only as a part of your conspiracy theories.

 

[Shusha]

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.

Then why aren't the Arab Palestinians at war with Jordan to regain that lost territory? How did their inalienable rights to Jordan (part of Palestine) get lost?

 

[Slyhunter]

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

Link?

Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli shit.

You make a false statement and then demand a link to show it is false?

I want a link for you to prove your bullshit to be true.

If you can't prove it, don't say it.

But it was your statement that was false. When presenting a link use one from a non-Muslim biased source.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Neither the Palestine Order in Council, the Palestine Citizenship Order, or the Palestine Election Order granted any control over the Government of Palestine. The Government of Palestine was in the hands of the British High Commissioner.

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.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

Link?
Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli shit.

(COMMENT)

Copy Right: Government Of Palestine 1924 Early & Rare Emergency Laissez Passer
​

Our Friend "P F Tinmore" really believes that there is this huge conspiracy to ignore Palestinian Citizenship, the nation, and the sovereignty to the territory. But you will be hard pressed to convience him that the citizenship to Palestine in 1924 did not relate to an autonomous government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

They were also offered most of E. Jerusalem

Can't offer what you don't have. East Jerusalem is not Israeli property.

Sorry, but Israel has control of E. Jerusalem now and is never going to give it up. Can’t offer what you don’t have? Then the Palestinians don’t have the right to demand passage between Gaza and the W. Bank on Israeli land. Two can play that game!

Oh, you're gonna give it up alright. You're gonna give it up, like you did Gaza strip.

As far as passage between the WB and Gaza, I have to agree with you there. That is Israeli land and jurisdiction. It's mean, but its legal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Cannot demand what you never have.

I'm sure you can provide your land ownership certificate.

Sure. It's called UN Resolution 242.

 

[Billo_Really]

I agree. Palestinians do not occupy Israeli land. But for the same reasons Israel does not occupy Palestinian land. Why? Because it is yet to be determined what IS Israeli land and what IS Palestinian land. The negotiation and peace treaty has not yet occurred. The territory is disputed.

We also agree that by convention, if not by formal treaty, there is a definitive, undisputed (international) boundary between Israel and Gaza, yes? So what gives Gazan, especially hostile Gazans, the right to cross an international boundary into territory which is NOT THEIRS? And what removes Israel's right to defend her sovereignty at that boundary?

It is not a disputed territory. It is clear, Israel has no sovereign title to that land. It wasn't given to Zionists in the Mandate, so they took it in the '67 war. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.