So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Are these actual "laws?"

A/RES/37/43
3 December 1982

Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples
to self-determination and of the speedy granting of
independence to colonial countries and peoples for the
effective guarantee and observance of human rights

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

(COMMENT)

When a Resolutions passes into law, there are a couple of things in the resolution that go along with it.

Example of an General Assembly Resolution that has become law:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49 ​

Notice that General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 --- gives an entry into force date (23 March 1976). It also gives the Article of intent.

Article 49

1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
​

Absent the Article of intent and activation --- AND date of the Covenant goes into force, IT IS NOT A LAW. Not being transformed into law, it has no force. The example took 10 years for ratification and accession.

Your 33 year old General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 has NO Article if Intent and Activation as to how and when it becomes Law, nor has it been ratified by the pre-requisite 35 member.

(THOUGHT)

I've notice that a vast number of pro-Palestinians rely on these Resolutions that are expressions of the opinion --- are mistaken for legal requirements. But please don't mistake them for that. They are not binding as a matter of routine; in fact very few are brought into law and become binding.

An example of this is the International Bill of Rights (IBR). The IBR is made up of three documents: i) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and ii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). While the CESCR and the CCPR are Covenant that have been brought into force, the UDHR has not. There are things in the UDHR that many countries believe are purely matters of national sovereignty and should not be address by International Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[Boston1]

WOW

Again you might want to discuss this issue you seem to have with peacefully discussing this conflict with others with a qualified therapist. Mention cognitive dissonance and you might save some time.

you are clearly lashing out against overwhelming evidence contrary to your preferred view. A view that is obviously indefensible in the face of factual evidence.

Dude, shove that condescending attitude up your ass!

Factual evidence is that land was seized in a war. Factual evidence is it is against the law to hold onto land seized in a war. Factual evidence is there isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with you.

Add them all up and the evidence is overwhelming..........against you!

If you would like to engage in a peaceful productive conversation thats cool but if you insist on the childish language and profanity, you're not gong to get very far/

In the mean time feel free to document exactly what makes you think Israel is legally obligated to return land that was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland to a non state entity.

The Jewish National Home was not a transfer of land to Jews.

You are basing your post on false premise.

Nonsense

the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home.”

This is clearly an acceptance of the Judaic people creating a country within the British mandated area.

Wrong again my friend

My post is correct.

Your post was demonstrably incorrect

Quote

Nonsense

the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home.”

This is clearly an acceptance of the Judaic people creating a country within the British mandated area.

Wrong again my friend

End Quote

 

[Boston1]

As usual you don't know what you are talking about. The British specifically denied that there was any acceptance of creating a country for the Judaic people. As reiterated in Churchill's statement in the White Paper of 1922.

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

As usual your position has been exposed as the revisionist nonsense it is

Thanks to Rocco

If I could find the thanks button on this thing ?

 

[montelatici]

The only revisionist nonsense is the nonsense you and Rocco post. Your Hasbara propaganda was debunked through the use of source documentation from UN, governmental and academic archives long ago.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you are right. There is no real estate document that transfers real property from one sovereignty to another in most cases; unless one sovereignty makes an agreesment to another party. Alaska was purchase from the Russian, and of course there was the Louisiana Purchase from France.

WOW

Again you might want to discuss this issue you seem to have with peacefully discussing this conflict with others with a qualified therapist. Mention cognitive dissonance and you might save some time.

you are clearly lashing out against overwhelming evidence contrary to your preferred view. A view that is obviously indefensible in the face of factual evidence.

Dude, shove that condescending attitude up your ass!

Factual evidence is that land was seized in a war. Factual evidence is it is against the law to hold onto land seized in a war. Factual evidence is there isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with you.

Add them all up and the evidence is overwhelming..........against you!

If you would like to engage in a peaceful productive conversation thats cool but if you insist on the childish language and profanity, you're not gong to get very far/

In the mean time feel free to document exactly what makes you think Israel is legally obligated to return land that was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland to a non state entity.

The Jewish National Home was not a transfer of land to Jews.

You are basing your post on false premise.

(COMMENT)

The territory was subject to the Declaration of Independence; under the Declarative Theory of Acquisition and the “Constitutive.” These concepts are generally ignored because they invalid objection by the Pro-Palestinian Movement.

See Posting 283
See Posting 265

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

The only revisionist nonsense is the nonsense you and Rocco post. Your Hasbara propaganda was debunked through the use of source documentation from UN, governmental and academic archives long ago.

Its pretty easy to see that you have no intention of actually addressing a single rebuttal but instead insist on simply repeating the same old revisionist nonsense.

No worries, makes it easier to expose the fraud

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Are these actual "laws?"

A/RES/37/43
3 December 1982

Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples
to self-determination and of the speedy granting of
independence to colonial countries and peoples for the
effective guarantee and observance of human rights

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

(COMMENT)

When a Resolutions passes into law, there are a couple of things in the resolution that go along with it.

Example of an General Assembly Resolution that has become law:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49 ​

Notice that General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 --- gives an entry into force date (23 March 1976). It also gives the Article of intent.

Article 49

1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
​

Absent the Article of intent and activation --- AND date of the Covenant goes into force, IT IS NOT A LAW. Not being transformed into law, it has no force. The example took 10 years for ratification and accession.

Your 33 year old General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 has NO Article if Intent and Activation as to how and when it becomes Law, nor has it been ratified by the pre-requisite 35 member.

(THOUGHT)

I've notice that a vast number of pro-Palestinians rely on these Resolutions that are expressions of the opinion --- are mistaken for legal requirements. But please don't mistake them for that. They are not binding as a matter of routine; in fact very few are brought into law and become binding.

An example of this is the International Bill of Rights (IBR). The IBR is made up of three documents: i) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and ii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). While the CESCR and the CCPR are Covenant that have been brought into force, the UDHR has not. There are things in the UDHR that many countries believe are purely matters of national sovereignty and should not be address by International Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

What is extraordinary, is that it appears you really believe that colonized or people under belligerent do not have the right, under international law, to resist colonization or occupation through any means. Does that mean that all the anti-colonial movements were illegal, including the U.S. war of independence?

 

[montelatici]

The only revisionist nonsense is the nonsense you and Rocco post. Your Hasbara propaganda was debunked through the use of source documentation from UN, governmental and academic archives long ago.

Its pretty easy to see that you have no intention of actually addressing a single rebuttal but instead insist on simply repeating the same old revisionist nonsense.

No worries, makes it easier to expose the fraud

The fraud is your repeating the Hasbara propaganda. I have rebutted every position you have taken with source documentation. You lost. Quit digging.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Indeed, you are correct.

As usual you don't know what you are talking about. The British specifically denied that there was any acceptance of creating a country for the Judaic people. As reiterated in Churchill's statement in the White Paper of 1922.

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

(COMMENT)

It was never the 1922 intention of the Allied Powers, the Council of the League of Nations, or the Mandatory (HM's Government), that entirety of the Mandate for Palestine was to become a Jewish anything (national Home to a Nation). And indeed, following this statement, in 1923, the carve-out of the Mandate to the East of the Jordan River and to the frontier if Mesopotamia, was to be established as Arab Trans-Jordan; 77% of the Mandate was declared as Arab under the quasi-Autonomy of the Emir.

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO
THE UNITED NATIONS
A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947​

91. His Majesty’s Government issued, simultaneously with the Report of the Royal Commission, a statement of policy in which they announced that:

• “The present Mandate became almost unworkable once it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal commission speaking with the twofold authority conferred on it by its impartiality and its unanimity, and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself.”
  
  The Mandates Commission therefore advised that the British government should be empowered to explore the possibility of a “new territorial solution”. They considered, however, that it would be unwise to establish two independent states without a further period of mandatory supervision. They therefore recommended that, if the policy of partition was adopted, the Jewish and Arab States should remain under a transitional mandatory regime, either as separate entities or in some form of provisional federation, until they had given sufficient proof of their ability to govern themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Continuing to justify European colonization of Palestine, does not help your argument. Trans-Jordan was assigned to the Bedouins (Hashemites) as a reward for their support of the British, not the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) who were no more Bedouin than the Germans.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You are a bit mistaken.

What is extraordinary, is that it appears you really believe that colonized or people under belligerent do not have the right, under international law, to resist colonization or occupation through any means. Does that mean that all the anti-colonial movements were illegal, including the U.S. war of independence?

(COMMENT)

"We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." – Benjamin Franklin.​

Most definitely the American War of Independence was seen as a very direct act of treason against crown and king.

THE TRAITORS
"... we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
​

ALL 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, where keenly aware that the punishment for this treason was death. No question about it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

montelatici, et al,

Are these actual "laws?"

A/RES/37/43
3 December 1982

Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples
to self-determination and of the speedy granting of
independence to colonial countries and peoples for the
effective guarantee and observance of human rights

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

(COMMENT)

When a Resolutions passes into law, there are a couple of things in the resolution that go along with it.

Example of an General Assembly Resolution that has become law:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49 ​

Notice that General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 --- gives an entry into force date (23 March 1976). It also gives the Article of intent.

Article 49

1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
​

Absent the Article of intent and activation --- AND date of the Covenant goes into force, IT IS NOT A LAW. Not being transformed into law, it has no force. The example took 10 years for ratification and accession.

Your 33 year old General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 has NO Article if Intent and Activation as to how and when it becomes Law, nor has it been ratified by the pre-requisite 35 member.

(THOUGHT)

I've notice that a vast number of pro-Palestinians rely on these Resolutions that are expressions of the opinion --- are mistaken for legal requirements. But please don't mistake them for that. They are not binding as a matter of routine; in fact very few are brought into law and become binding.

An example of this is the International Bill of Rights (IBR). The IBR is made up of three documents: i) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and ii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). While the CESCR and the CCPR are Covenant that have been brought into force, the UDHR has not. There are things in the UDHR that many countries believe are purely matters of national sovereignty and should not be address by International Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

What is extraordinary, is that it appears you really believe that colonized or people under belligerent do not have the right, under international law, to resist colonization or occupation through any means. Does that mean that all the anti-colonial movements were illegal, including the U.S. war of independence?

Yikes, so many misrepresentations its hard to even know where to start

A) there was no colonization, land was purchased legally right up until the Arabs attacked.
B) The Israeli's have never been the belligerents, every war was started by the Arabs with only the palestinians continuing that war today.
C) International law demands the segregation of combatants from non combatants within refugee populations. The UN has failed to do this and instead is offering aid to a combatant force within the UN run refugee camps.
D) Palestinians terorism is not resistance
E) The US war of independence bears no resemblance to the Israeli palestinian conflict

 

[Billo_Really]

Seems indicative of a certain maturity level I've come to expect from the revisionist writers.

Listen asshole, if you want a respectful conversation, then you better drop that condescending attitude.

Seems to me I've done nothing but address other peoples posts around here, if I missed a few, oops.

No, you haven't addressed my points and you know you haven't. It ain't no "oops".

You said the UN was "biased" and I proved it wasn't in post #304.

You said Israel was "lenient" and I proved it wasn't in post #227.

This has happened several times and all I get from you is "crickets".

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Read it again.

Continuing to justify European colonization of Palestine, does not help your argument. Trans-Jordan was assigned to the Bedouins (Hashemites) as a reward for their support of the British, not the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) who were no more Bedouin than the Germans.

(COMMENT)

When talking about Partition and Statehood, the Allied Powers and the Mandatory speak in terms of a Jewish State and an Arab State. But not a Palestinian State. That is true from the start (1916) to the Partition Plan of 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Are these actual "laws?"

A/RES/37/43
3 December 1982

Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples
to self-determination and of the speedy granting of
independence to colonial countries and peoples for the
effective guarantee and observance of human rights

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

(COMMENT)

When a Resolutions passes into law, there are a couple of things in the resolution that go along with it.

Example of an General Assembly Resolution that has become law:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49 ​

Notice that General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 --- gives an entry into force date (23 March 1976). It also gives the Article of intent.

Article 49

1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
​

Absent the Article of intent and activation --- AND date of the Covenant goes into force, IT IS NOT A LAW. Not being transformed into law, it has no force. The example took 10 years for ratification and accession.

Your 33 year old General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 has NO Article if Intent and Activation as to how and when it becomes Law, nor has it been ratified by the pre-requisite 35 member.

(THOUGHT)

I've notice that a vast number of pro-Palestinians rely on these Resolutions that are expressions of the opinion --- are mistaken for legal requirements. But please don't mistake them for that. They are not binding as a matter of routine; in fact very few are brought into law and become binding.

An example of this is the International Bill of Rights (IBR). The IBR is made up of three documents: i) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and ii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). While the CESCR and the CCPR are Covenant that have been brought into force, the UDHR has not. There are things in the UDHR that many countries believe are purely matters of national sovereignty and should not be address by International Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

What is extraordinary, is that it appears you really believe that colonized or people under belligerent do not have the right, under international law, to resist colonization or occupation through any means. Does that mean that all the anti-colonial movements were illegal, including the U.S. war of independence?

Yikes, so many misrepresentations its hard to even know where to start

A) there was no colonization, land was purchased legally right up until the Arabs attacked.
B) The Israeli's have never been the belligerents, every war was started by the Arabs with only the palestinians continuing that war today.
C) International law demands the segregation of combatants from non combatants within refugee populations. The UN has failed to do this and instead is offering aid to a combatant force within the UN run refugee camps.
D) Palestinians terorism is not resistance
E) The US war of independence bears no resemblance to the Israeli palestinian conflict

A) Of course there was colonization. The Zionists themselves admitted as much.
B) Of course the colonizers are belligerents. The colonizers, by definition and coming from another continent to take land from the native inhabitants, are the invaders.
C) Of course the people being colonized have the right to resist colonization by any means.
D) Resisting occupation and/or colonization is not terrorism, by definition.
E) The American colonists did have less of a right to resist Britain as they were themselves colonists, I can agree with you that the native people of Palestine have more of a right to resist European colonization than the Americans, themselves colonists, had.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Read it again.

Continuing to justify European colonization of Palestine, does not help your argument. Trans-Jordan was assigned to the Bedouins (Hashemites) as a reward for their support of the British, not the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) who were no more Bedouin than the Germans.

(COMMENT)

When talking about Partition and Statehood, the Allied Powers and the Mandatory speak in terms of a Jewish State and an Arab State. But not a Palestinian State. That is true from the start (1916) to the Partition Plan of 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no talk of a Jewish state until 1947. In fact, the British denied there was any intention of establishing a Jewish state.

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, you guys tend to jump and make assumptions.

montelatici, et al,

Read it again.

Continuing to justify European colonization of Palestine, does not help your argument. Trans-Jordan was assigned to the Bedouins (Hashemites) as a reward for their support of the British, not the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) who were no more Bedouin than the Germans.

(COMMENT)

When talking about Partition and Statehood, the Allied Powers and the Mandatory speak in terms of a Jewish State and an Arab State. But not a Palestinian State. That is true from the start (1916) to the Partition Plan of 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no talk of a Jewish state until 1947. In fact, the British denied there was any intention of establishing a Jewish state.

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

(COMMENT)

What it says is "wholly Jewish Palestine;" NOT a Jewish State, as in partition.

Don't rewrite what it says.

Also remember that we are talking about a statement in policy made in 1922. This does not reflect any changes in policy or changes in intent that may occur some 20 years later in the 1940's.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

theliq, et al,

I know of some "legal exceptions" to the law that have yet to be litigated, BUT I am unclear as to which law in particular, you claim Israel is acting contrary to or forbidden by law, in the establishment of its occupation.

Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert

(COMMENT)

First, I believe that all the territory that Israel has either "effective control" --- or --- "exclusive control" can be placed under dispute prior to Peace Negotiations or Claim Settlement Proceedings; especial with regard to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

There is an argument to be made under international law; as there was a point at which both territories were expressly or implicitly relinquished to Israeli sovereignty. OR there was a point at which Israel was the only sovereignty to maintain control over the territory and claim. Terra nullius

View attachment 58085
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Sorry Rocco,but Israel have NO intention of giving ANY LAND back,as is clearly seen by the ferocious building for Jews on Palestinian land moreover when Peace was close.....what did you do,Murder Mr Rabin your Prime Minister....you need say NO MORE......steve,Rocco I'd like to wish you and your family a Happy New Year

 

[theliq]

The most rudimentary fact is that before the European invasion starting in the mid 18oos, 99% of the people in Palestine were either Christian or Muslim. The Zionists were European colonists, they described themselves as such.

Yikes, another half truth.

The whole truth, of which you are leaving off quite a bit is that in the mid 1800 a massive pogrom to eliminate Jews from this area of the Ottoman empire was undertaken and Jews were either killed or forced to abandon their homes and flee.

What do you suppose that does to the population in the time frame you specify ?

Again your accusations are demonstrably false or half truths, Again even the slightest application of research will refute these insinuations that Jews had abandoned Judea of their own free will

Quote

Following the Damascus affair, Pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa. Pogroms occurred in: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jerusalem (1847), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891), Istanbul (1870, 1874), Buyukdere (1864), Kuzguncuk (1866), Eyub (1868), Edirne (1872), Izmir (1872, 1874).[16] There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828.[12] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.[12]

In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. This is known as the Allahdad incident. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted.[17]

In Palestine there were riots and pogroms against Jews in 1920 and 1921. Tensions over the Western Wall in Jerusalem led to the 1929 Palestine riots,[18] whose main victims were the ancient Jewish community at Hebron which came to an end.

End Quote.

So again your revisionist narrative is proven vastly inadequate in relaying anything of a factual nature.

But not by Palestinians unless you mean their retribution after the squalid illegal Jewish immigrants killing and murders of the Palestinians done previously.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, you guys tend to jump and make assumptions.

montelatici, et al,

Read it again.

Continuing to justify European colonization of Palestine, does not help your argument. Trans-Jordan was assigned to the Bedouins (Hashemites) as a reward for their support of the British, not the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) who were no more Bedouin than the Germans.

(COMMENT)

When talking about Partition and Statehood, the Allied Powers and the Mandatory speak in terms of a Jewish State and an Arab State. But not a Palestinian State. That is true from the start (1916) to the Partition Plan of 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no talk of a Jewish state until 1947. In fact, the British denied there was any intention of establishing a Jewish state.

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

(COMMENT)

What it says is "wholly Jewish Palestine;" NOT a Jewish State, as in partition.

Don't rewrite what it says.

Also remember that we are talking about a statement in policy made in 1922. This does not reflect any changes in policy or changes in intent that may occur some 20 years later in the 1940's.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947



"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

nor do you maniacal partisans read what the British said about Jew terrorism:

"Zionism, however, does not content itself with mere propaganda in favour of the fulfilment of its expansionist projects at the expense of the Arab countries. Its plan involves recourse to terrorism, both in Palestine and in other countries. It is known that a secret army has been formed with a view to creating an atmosphere of tension and unrest by making attempts on the lives of representatives of the governing authority and by destroying public buildings . . . This aggressive attitude, resulting from the mandatory Power's weakness in dealing with them, will not fail to give rise in turn to the creation of similar organizations by the Arabs. The responsibility for the disturbances which might result therefrom throughout the Middle East will rest solely with the Zionist organizations, as having been the first to use these violent tactics." It was declared at the same meeting that "against a State established by violence, the Arab States will be obliged to use violence; that is a legitimate right of self-defence".135/"

"Zionism, however, does not content itself with mere propaganda in favour of the fulfilment of its expansionist projects at the expense of the Arab countries. Its plan involves recourse to terrorism, both in Palestine and in other countries. It is known that a secret army has been formed with a view to creating an atmosphere of tension and unrest by making attempts on the lives of representatives of the governing authority and by destroying public buildings . . . This aggressive attitude, resulting from the mandatory Power's weakness in dealing with them, will not fail to give rise in turn to the creation of similar organizations by the Arabs. The responsibility for the disturbances which might result therefrom throughout the Middle East will rest solely with the Zionist organizations, as having been the first to use these violent tactics." It was declared at the same meeting that "against a State established by violence, the Arab States will be obliged to use violence; that is a legitimate right of self-defence".135/