The Balfour Declaration

[Mindful]

So you post an Israeli propaganda site.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​

Your source is revision discussion on wikipedia?

History did not change. The newer version focuses more on current events.

Revision means.....changing the history....

The question is...

Who is doing that revision.....and why....

and why is ALL of the history of the Jewish people being revised?

Israel, Jews, Zionists Seminar Takeover of Wikipedia Online Information to Implement Disinformation

Says the guy who insists a wiki revision makes his case.

I wonder why he's such a zealot about making 'his case'.

He must eat, sleep, and dream this stuff.

 

[rylah]

Your source is revision discussion on wikipedia?

History did not change. The newer version focuses more on current events.

Revision means.....changing the history....

The question is...

Who is doing that revision.....and why....

and why is ALL of the history of the Jewish people being revised?

Israel, Jews, Zionists Seminar Takeover of Wikipedia Online Information to Implement Disinformation

Says the guy who insists a wiki revision makes his case.

I wonder why he's such a zealot about making 'his case'.

He must eat, sleep, and dream this stuff.

Single topic, on a daily basis, for 9 years.
Not one positive post about Jews and Israel.

Magic.

 

[rylah]

How does the Balfour Declaration stand as a legal document?
Dr. Jacques Gauthier is the principal and founder of Gauthier & Associates, an international law firm established in Toronto, Canada, in 1984. He has spent decades promoting the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Jerusalem under international law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I did.


State in Palestine
August 10, 2016 | Eli E. Hertz
Source: There Has Never Been a Sovereign Arab State in Palestine

The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arab nations who never established a Palestinian state themselves.

The rhetoric by Arab leaders on behalf of the Palestinians rings hollow. Arabs in neighboring states, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitants part of the great “Arab nation,” historically and politically as an integral part of Greater Syria – Suriyya al-Kubra – a designation that extended to both sides of the Jordan River. In the 1950s, Jordan simply annexed the West Bank since the population there was viewed as the brethren of the Jordanians.

The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN in 1947 recommended to partition Palestine, and to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

And as for Jerusalem: Only twice in the city’s history has it served as a national capital. First as the capital of the two Jewish Commonwealths during the First and Second Temple periods, as described in the Bible, reinforced by archaeological evidence and numerous ancient documents. And again, in modern times as the capital of the State of Israel. It has never served as an Arab capital for the simple reason that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state.

So you post an Israeli propaganda site.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​

Your source is revision discussion on wikipedia?

History did not change. The newer version focuses more on current events.

Revision means.....changing the history....

The question is...

Who is doing that revision.....and why....

and why is ALL of the history of the Jewish people being revised?

Israel, Jews, Zionists Seminar Takeover of Wikipedia Online Information to Implement Disinformation

One look at the bombs strapped to their chest, and you know what makes the Palestinians tick….

 

[Mindful]

Much of the argument against the state of Israel’s existence and the Jewish connection to the land is based on the fallacy that Jews had little presence there until the advent of mass immigration from Europe a century ago. Too many academics and anti-Semites want the world to believe that. They claim the Jews stole the land—a lie exposed and refuted early on in “Reclaiming Israel’s History.”

Disarming Israel’s Revisionist Detractors

 

[P F Tinmore]

As usual, Team Palestine discussing "rights" in a vacuum without acknowledging the reality of the situation, including the war which occurred between Israel and hostile locals and five invading armies.

The war that Israel started you mean? Is it that one you are talking about?

Israel started the war? How so? By what actions did Israel start the war?

Colonization requires violence. People do not get colonized voluntarily.

 

[rylah]

As usual, Team Palestine discussing "rights" in a vacuum without acknowledging the reality of the situation, including the war which occurred between Israel and hostile locals and five invading armies.

The war that Israel started you mean? Is it that one you are talking about?

Israel started the war? How so? By what actions did Israel start the war?

Colonization requires violence. People do not get colonized voluntarily.

Pan-Arab colors
The black was the color of the banner of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphate and was later adopted by the Abbasid Caliphate; white was used by the Umayyad Caliphate; green was used by the Fatimid Caliphate; and red was both the flag held by the Khawarij and also represented the Hashemites, as well as the Ottoman Empire.[4] T

Q. Does the Calipahte sound like a voluntary colonization?

 

[Shusha]

Colonization requires violence. People do not get colonized voluntarily.

Sure. Neither did the Jewish people get invaded and colonized voluntarily.

Your point, once again, is that the MERE PRESENCE OF JEWS in their own homeland is "violence."

 

[Shusha]

Or alternatively, you are suggesting the RETURNING to your own homeland is an act of violence.

Ummmmm....Might want to think THAT one through!

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Resolutions and laws that cover the America and every other country in the world also covers Israel. YET! It would be absurd for the UN to publish 139 different resolutions to express the:

(a) Self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Yes, I agree → all that was said → but it does not mean that the Israelis, or anyone else, needs to make way for the Palestinians. The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.

Then post the UN resolution for the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

And, once again, it is important to note that the two resolutions you cite have no force of law. The 1945 UN Charter (Chapter One) covers all 139 members; which includes Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Resolutions and laws that cover the America and every other country in the world also covers Israel. YET! It would be absurd for the UN to publish 139 different resolutions to express the:

(a) Self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Yes, I agree → all that was said → but it does not mean that the Israelis, or anyone else, needs to make way for the Palestinians. The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.

Then post the UN resolution for the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

And, once again, it is important to note that the two resolutions you cite have no force of law. The 1945 UN Charter (Chapter One) covers all 139 members; which includes Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

He also might want to check out UNGA 273 and UNSC 69.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your interpretation.

BTW: Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law. UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974. That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).

Yes but the resolution referenced the UN Charter that predated Israel's declaration. It also said:

Expressing its grave concern
that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,​

Preventing a people's rights (by aggression, external interference, etc.) is a violation of the law.

(COMMENT)

It does not actually say who, how, or when (basic interrogative to an allegation) the rights were prevented. It merely expresses a concern. It is a feel-good type of resolution.

Remember, that the Israelis, following the recommendations of the General Assembly, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and carried forth the process. It was the Arab League, representing the Arab Palestinians, that cross their borders in an assault on Israel. (First act of aggression, attempting to prevent the Jewish People from effecting self-determination.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ Humanity, Shusha, et al,

Well...

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree → all that was said → but it does not mean that the Israelis, or anyone else, needs to make way for the Palestinians. The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.

BTW: Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law. UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974. That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).

The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988. So it only stands to reason that any territory that the Israels had control over before the November 1988 PLO proclamation is Israeli; unless they abandon it.

Most Respectfully,
R

The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.

Then why do the Israelis have rights and the Palestinians do not.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense.

The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988.

The state of Palestine was widely recognized, including by the US, all during the period that it was administered by the Mandate. The League of Nations Covenant stated that the Mandate was to administer the territory in the best interest of the inhabitants implying the right to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

Don't confuse the "Government of Palestine" (Civil Administration by the British Government) with the "State of Palestine" (PLO Declaration of 1988).

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

The Arab Palestinians developed a childish policy of "all or nothing." If they could not have the entire territory, they would not participate in the development of a self-governing institution.

The outcome of today is the fault of the Arab Palestinians reaching back to the time the Mandate was implemented.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your interpretation.

BTW: Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law. UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974. That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).

Yes but the resolution referenced the UN Charter that predated Israel's declaration. It also said:

Expressing its grave concern
that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,​

Preventing a people's rights (by aggression, external interference, etc.) is a violation of the law.

(COMMENT)

It does not actually say who, how, or when (basic interrogative to an allegation) the rights were prevented. It merely expresses a concern. It is a feel-good type of resolution.

Remember, that the Israelis, following the recommendations of the General Assembly, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and carried forth the process. It was the Arab League, representing the Arab Palestinians, that cross their borders in an assault on Israel. (First act of aggression, attempting to prevent the Jewish People from effecting self-determination.)

Most Respectfully,
R

It was the Arab League, representing the Arab Palestinians, that cross their borders in an assault on Israel.

Israeli crap. Israel was not attacked.

You base your conclusion on false premise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your interpretation.

BTW: Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law. UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974. That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).

Yes but the resolution referenced the UN Charter that predated Israel's declaration. It also said:

Expressing its grave concern
that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,​

Preventing a people's rights (by aggression, external interference, etc.) is a violation of the law.

(COMMENT)

It does not actually say who, how, or when (basic interrogative to an allegation) the rights were prevented. It merely expresses a concern. It is a feel-good type of resolution.

Remember, that the Israelis, following the recommendations of the General Assembly, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and carried forth the process. It was the Arab League, representing the Arab Palestinians, that cross their borders in an assault on Israel. (First act of aggression, attempting to prevent the Jewish People from effecting self-determination.)

Most Respectfully,
R

It does not actually say who, how, or when (basic interrogative to an allegation) the rights were prevented.

It started with the British who were in cahoots with the Zionists. Britain denied their right to self determination right out the gate.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is no more true today, then it was in the time of the Ottoman Empire.

The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988.

The state of Palestine was widely recognized, including by the US, all during the period that it was administered by the Mandate. The League of Nations Covenant stated that the Mandate was to administer the territory in the best interest of the inhabitants implying the right to self-determination.

For the Jewish People, with the Arabs living under Jewish sovereignty.

See my previous post for the rest of it.

The inhabitants have sovereignty. Foreigners do not.

Look it up.

(COMMENT)

You will not find this nonsense codified in any international law. What you will find is something like this:

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not recall anyone saying the Arab Palestinians do not have rights...

Then why do the Israelis have rights and the Palestinians do not.

(COMMENT)

Again, this is nonsense. The Israelis and the Arab Palestinians have essentially the exact same rights. But the Arab Palestinians cannot come in after the fact and attempt to usurp Israeli rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It started with the British who were in cahoots with the Zionists. Britain denied their right to self-determination right out the gate.

(COMMENT)

Again, nonsense.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not recall anyone saying the Arab Palestinians do not have rights...

Then why do the Israelis have rights and the Palestinians do not.

(COMMENT)

Again, this is nonsense. The Israelis and the Arab Palestinians have essentially the exact same rights. But the Arab Palestinians cannot come in after the fact and attempt to usurp Israeli rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

But the Arab Palestinians cannot come in after the fact and attempt to usurp Israeli rights.

The Palestinians did not "come in after the fact," They were already there at home before all of this started.