The genius of the UN's resolution on Israeli settlements

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah, I keep hearing some say that. But it is not an argument you can pursue.

• The Allied Powers, had the authority that goes with the Title and Rights, established an Immigration Policy.

Wrong, the Allied Powers were required, pursuant to the Covenant of the League of Nations, to insure the well-being and development of the inhabitants, who at the time of writing were 95% non-Jewish.

(COMMENT)

Article 22 of the League of Nations (LON) Covenant (indeed the entire Covenant) is an pledge or obligation between the parties to the Covenant. It was not a universal law or and applicable to those outside the Covenant or third-parties. You can think of it as a Contract between the Parties to the Covenant; which the Arabs of Palestine were not a member. In 1919 the Arabs of Palestine were the people under which the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration were responsible.

As it applies specifically to the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 22 is a obligation for the British (Mandatory) makes a promise to all the other members to the Coven to take or not take some action (the LON Covenant is a complex requiring affirmative, restrictive and prohibitive actions). In this case, the enforcement of the individual obligations are a matter for the other parties in the Coven to determine and decide if the obligations were satisfactorily met. It is not for the third parties (like the Regional Arabs) to decide, interpret or enforce.

You are totally off base when you try to imply that the LON Covenant is enforceable by members not a party to the Covenant. In fact, the LON Covenant does not even have to exist. The Allied Powers would still have the Title and Rights renounced by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. In fact, the Mandates would just become Agreements between States.

Absent an objection filed by a party to the Covenant on this issue, it is assumed that the other parties to the Covenant granted a benign form of approval that is not expressed clearly, in words. It is silent approval. Any disputes must be processed in accordance with Article 12 and 13 of the Covenant.

(QUESTION)

Do the Arab Palestinians know of any record holding that a member of the Coven files a dispute pertaining to you charge and claims?

I would like to read the proceedings.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

A lot of bullshit Rocco, as usual. The Covenant was a contract among the signatories, the signatories agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. The Muslims and Christians were the the inhabitants of Palestine, one of the signatories did not abide by the terms of the contract. Full stop.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Only the Arab States of Iraq (1937) and Egypt (1932) were ever members.

A lot of bullshit Rocco, as usual. The Covenant was a contract among the signatories, the signatories agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. The Muslims and Christians were the the inhabitants of Palestine, one of the signatories did not abide by the terms of the contract. Full stop.

(COMMENT)

OK if you say so, then I ask one more time:

• Do the Arab Palestinians know of any record holding that a member of the Coven files a dispute pertaining to you charge and claims?​

See the chronology...

If there is no Article 12 or 13 Action, there was no dispute or claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

and the predicament the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, is one of many possible outcomes that could have occurred as the result of a cascade series of events

Actually, no. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to "transfer" the Palestinians and create an exclusive state. They lobbied Britain to help them with their colonial project. Britain agreed because it would help them with their own interests. And, Britain had hundreds of years experience in colonization.

Britain and the Zionists both openly called it colonization. Britain found its plan to be unworkable. They left Palestine without creating a Jewish state as the Zionists wanted, or an independent Palestinian state as was called for by the LoN Covenant. They did, however, lay the groundwork for the Zionist military conquest of Palestine.

People don't get colonized voluntarily. It always requires aggression on the colonizers part. That is the initial aggression.

 

[Hollie]

and the predicament the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, is one of many possible outcomes that could have occurred as the result of a cascade series of events

Actually, no. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to "transfer" the Palestinians and create an exclusive state. They lobbied Britain to help them with their colonial project. Britain agreed because it would help them with their own interests. And, Britain had hundreds of years experience in colonization.

Britain and the Zionists both openly called it colonization. Britain found its plan to be unworkable. They left Palestine without creating a Jewish state as the Zionists wanted, or an independent Palestinian state as was called for by the LoN Covenant. They did, however, lay the groundwork for the Zionist military conquest of Palestine.

People don't get colonized voluntarily. It always requires aggression on the colonizers part. That is the initial aggression.

the Zionist military conquest of Palestine™

Come on. Tell us where you steal your slogans from.

 

[P F Tinmore]

and the predicament the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, is one of many possible outcomes that could have occurred as the result of a cascade series of events

Actually, no. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to "transfer" the Palestinians and create an exclusive state. They lobbied Britain to help them with their colonial project. Britain agreed because it would help them with their own interests. And, Britain had hundreds of years experience in colonization.

Britain and the Zionists both openly called it colonization. Britain found its plan to be unworkable. They left Palestine without creating a Jewish state as the Zionists wanted, or an independent Palestinian state as was called for by the LoN Covenant. They did, however, lay the groundwork for the Zionist military conquest of Palestine.

People don't get colonized voluntarily. It always requires aggression on the colonizers part. That is the initial aggression.

the Zionist military conquest of Palestine™

Come on. Tell us where you steal your slogans from.

Israeli/Zionist documents.

 

[Shusha]

Actually, no. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to "transfer" the Palestinians and create an exclusive state.

Bullcrap. There is no reason to believe this other than projection. Why haven't they done so, then? Israel certainly has the power to do it. Why hasn't she, in your opinion?

 

[Shusha]

They left Palestine without creating ... an independent Palestinian state as was called for by the LoN Covenant.

Actually, an independent Palestinian State was created.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Only the Arab States of Iraq (1937) and Egypt (1932) were ever members.

A lot of bullshit Rocco, as usual. The Covenant was a contract among the signatories, the signatories agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. The Muslims and Christians were the the inhabitants of Palestine, one of the signatories did not abide by the terms of the contract. Full stop.

(COMMENT)

OK if you say so, then I ask one more time:

• Do the Arab Palestinians know of any record holding that a member of the Coven files a dispute pertaining to you charge and claims?​

See the chronology...

If there is no Article 12 or 13 Action, there was no dispute or claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you are saying that the Palestinians had no rights?

 

[P F Tinmore]

They left Palestine without creating ... an independent Palestinian state as was called for by the LoN Covenant.

Actually, an independent Palestinian State was created.

Indeed, the state of Palestine was created in 1924 and they legally declared independence from the defunct Mandate in 1948.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Only the Arab States of Iraq (1937) and Egypt (1932) were ever members.

A lot of bullshit Rocco, as usual. The Covenant was a contract among the signatories, the signatories agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. The Muslims and Christians were the the inhabitants of Palestine, one of the signatories did not abide by the terms of the contract. Full stop.

(COMMENT)

OK if you say so, then I ask one more time:

• Do the Arab Palestinians know of any record holding that a member of the Coven files a dispute pertaining to you charge and claims?​

See the chronology...

If there is no Article 12 or 13 Action, there was no dispute or claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

It does not matter whether or not a member of the LON disputes the contravention of the terms of the Covenant. It remains a contravention.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know, you do this a lot... Do you do this to get out of answering the question?

I do not think I even spoke of "rights" in the comment string.

montelatici, et al,

Only the Arab States of Iraq (1937) and Egypt (1932) were ever members.

A lot of bullshit Rocco, as usual. The Covenant was a contract among the signatories, the signatories agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. The Muslims and Christians were the the inhabitants of Palestine, one of the signatories did not abide by the terms of the contract. Full stop.

(COMMENT)

OK if you say so, then I ask one more time:

• Do the Arab Palestinians know of any record holding that a member of the Coven files a dispute pertaining to you charge and claims?​

See the chronology...

If there is no Article 12 or 13 Action, there was no dispute or claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you are saying that the Palestinians had no rights?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians (as well as the Lebanese, Syrians, or Jordanians) were not a party to the Covenant. That said, the Arab Palestinians cannot use Article 22 as a basis for a non-compliance complaint. None of the parties to the Covenant owed the Arab Palestinians an obligation.

The obligation is between the members of the Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know, you do this a lot... Do you do this to get out of answering the question?

I do not think I even spoke of "rights" in the comment string.

montelatici, et al,

Only the Arab States of Iraq (1937) and Egypt (1932) were ever members.

A lot of bullshit Rocco, as usual. The Covenant was a contract among the signatories, the signatories agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. The Muslims and Christians were the the inhabitants of Palestine, one of the signatories did not abide by the terms of the contract. Full stop.

(COMMENT)

OK if you say so, then I ask one more time:

• Do the Arab Palestinians know of any record holding that a member of the Coven files a dispute pertaining to you charge and claims?​

See the chronology...

If there is no Article 12 or 13 Action, there was no dispute or claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you are saying that the Palestinians had no rights?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians (as well as the Lebanese, Syrians, or Jordanians) were not a party to the Covenant. That said, the Arab Palestinians cannot use Article 22 as a basis for a non-compliance complaint. None of the parties to the Covenant owed the Arab Palestinians an obligation.

The obligation is between the members of the Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is bullshit, Article 22 applies to the inhabitants it refers to. Not even the British tried your ridiculous attempt to claim that the native inhabitants had no rights, you idiot.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is completely wrong.

They left Palestine without creating ... an independent Palestinian state as was called for by the LoN Covenant.

Actually, an independent Palestinian State was created.

Indeed, the state of Palestine was created in 1924 and they legally declared independence from the defunct Mandate in 1948.

(COMMENT)

There was no State of Palestine in 1924. There was a Government of Palestine administered by Britain.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced the Title and Rights of that to the Allied Powers. Article 30 pertained to the nationality and citizenship to the Government of Palestine as Administered by the Allied Power via the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is completely wrong.

They left Palestine without creating ... an independent Palestinian state as was called for by the LoN Covenant.

Actually, an independent Palestinian State was created.

Indeed, the state of Palestine was created in 1924 and they legally declared independence from the defunct Mandate in 1948.

(COMMENT)

There was a Government of Palestine administered by Britain.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced the Title and Rights of that to the Allied Powers. Article 30 pertained to the nationality and citizenship to the Government of Palestine as Administered by the Allied Power via the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

You need to read up.

Government of What?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

No one said anything about "rights."

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know, you do this a lot... Do you do this to get out of answering the question?

I do not think I even spoke of "rights" in the comment string.

montelatici, et al,

Only the Arab States of Iraq (1937) and Egypt (1932) were ever members.

A lot of bullshit Rocco, as usual. The Covenant was a contract among the signatories, the signatories agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. The Muslims and Christians were the the inhabitants of Palestine, one of the signatories did not abide by the terms of the contract. Full stop.

(COMMENT)

OK if you say so, then I ask one more time:

• Do the Arab Palestinians know of any record holding that a member of the Coven files a dispute pertaining to you charge and claims?​

See the chronology...

If there is no Article 12 or 13 Action, there was no dispute or claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you are saying that the Palestinians had no rights?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians (as well as the Lebanese, Syrians, or Jordanians) were not a party to the Covenant. That said, the Arab Palestinians cannot use Article 22 as a basis for a non-compliance complaint. None of the parties to the Covenant owed the Arab Palestinians an obligation.

The obligation is between the members of the Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is bullshit, Article 22 applies to the inhabitants it refers to. Not even the British tried your ridiculous attempt to claim that the native inhabitants had no rights, you idiot.

(COMMENT)

There is no obligation or promise made to the Palestinians in Article 22. It talks in a generalization about several categories and "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire." Nowhere does it identify which are "these certain communities." In fact Palestine is not mentioned at all in the Treaty.

We are not talking about "rights." We are talking about the power that parties to the Covenant have in the matter of enforcement of the criteria. No party to the Covenant made any such claim and the Arab Palestinians were not ever a member of the Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

No one said anything about "rights."

Indeed, Rocco, you do not believe in such things.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Government of Palestine was an organ of the Mandatory.

Government of What?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Order in Council for Palestine (1922)

"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, the Order in Council for Palestine (1922)

Palestine was occupied Turkish territory then.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I said that either. I believe that I have spoken several times on the various right common to all peoples.

No one said anything about "rights."

Indeed, Rocco, you do not believe in such things.

(COMMENT)

The Rights of the Arab Palestinians are a different issues all together.

Most Respectfully,
R