The Issue Of The Land

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine was just Britain’s nickname for the British Mandate, which resulted in Israeli statehood. British Palestine ended in 1948.

Arabs, Muslims didn’t recognize any place as Palestine—It was simply southern Syria.

Abdullah al-Hadlaq, writer, Al-Watan, Kuwait: “When the state of Israel was established in 1948 there was no state called palestine. Where did we get that name which we have been defending? It didn’t exist.”
Kuwaiti Writer Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: Israel Is a Legitimate State, Not an Occupier; There Was No Palestine; I Support Israel-Gulf-U.S. Alliance to Annihilate Hizbullah

Britain passed Palestine over to the UN in 1948.

 

[MartyNYC]

Britain passed Palestine over to the UN in 1948.

You’ve been posting the same stupid shit since 2009. British Palestine ended with Israeli statehood.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You’ve been posting the same stupid shit since 2009. British Palestine ended with Israeli statehood.

Link?

 

[MartyNYC]

Link?

Forget so soon, you old son of a bitch?

 

[MJB12741]

It is true that indigenous Palestinians were Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Forget so soon, you old son of a bitch?

View attachment 796213

This is more or less true. However, some key elements were left out.

Two governing principles formed the core of the mandate system: non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[ii] The mandate system differed fundamentally from the protectorate system which preceded it, in that the mandatory power's obligations to the inhabitants of the territory were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.[29

According to Matz, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" on the other ... The principle of administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory's administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."[28]​

It is implied that the Mandate owned the territory. That is not true. The Mandate had no territory or sovereignty. The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the territory to Palestine and the native people held the sovereignty inside their territory.

This changes the implied history of the territory. It is illegal to acquire territory by conquest i.e. the threat or use of force. After the 1948 war, Palestine was still Palestine. (see the 1949 Armistice Agreements) However, Palestine was occupied. No Palestinian territory has ever been ceded to a foreign entity.

 

[MartyNYC]

This is more or less true. However, some key elements were left out.

Two governing principles formed the core of the mandate system: non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[ii] The mandate system differed fundamentally from the protectorate system which preceded it, in that the mandatory power's obligations to the inhabitants of the territory were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.[29​

​

According to Matz, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" on the other ... The principle of administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory's administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."[28]​

It is implied that the Mandate owned the territory. That is not true. The Mandate had no territory or sovereignty. The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the territory to Palestine and the native people held the sovereignty inside their territory.

This changes the implied history of the territory. It is illegal to acquire territory by conquest i.e. the threat or use of force. After the 1948 war, Palestine was still Palestine. (see the 1949 Armistice Agreements) However, Palestine was occupied. No Palestinian territory has ever been ceded to a foreign entity.

Same incomprehensible bullshit since 2009. You need a life.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Same incomprehensible bullshit since 2009. You need a life.

You can't refute anything I post, huh?

 

[MartyNYC]

You can't refute anything I post, huh?

You’ve been posting the same incoherent bullshit since 2009—You’re a pitiful old Nazi bastard.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You’ve been posting the same incoherent bullshit since 2009—You’re a pitiful old Nazi bastard.

Name calling is a sign of losing.

 

[MartyNYC]

Name calling is a sign of losing.

Others agree you’re a sick Nazi. Old, too….

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is more or less true. However, some key elements were left out.

Two governing principles formed the core of the mandate system: non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[ii] The mandate system differed fundamentally from the protectorate system which preceded it, in that the mandatory power's obligations to the inhabitants of the territory were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.[29​

​

According to Matz, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" on the other ... The principle of administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory's administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."[28]​

It is implied that the Mandate owned the territory. That is not true. The Mandate had no territory or sovereignty. The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the territory to Palestine and the native people held the sovereignty inside their territory.

This changes the implied history of the territory. It is illegal to acquire territory by conquest i.e. the threat or use of force. After the 1948 war, Palestine was still Palestine. (see the 1949 Armistice Agreements) However, Palestine was occupied. No Palestinian territory has ever been ceded to a foreign entity.

Well, you have deflected off my post.

 

[MartyNYC]

Well, you have deflected off my post.

Whose land, you old Nazi?

 

[MJB12741]

This is more or less true. However, some key elements were left out.

Two governing principles formed the core of the mandate system: non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[ii] The mandate system differed fundamentally from the protectorate system which preceded it, in that the mandatory power's obligations to the inhabitants of the territory were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.[29​

​

According to Matz, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" on the other ... The principle of administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory's administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."[28]​

It is implied that the Mandate owned the territory. That is not true. The Mandate had no territory or sovereignty. The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the territory to Palestine and the native people held the sovereignty inside their territory.

This changes the implied history of the territory. It is illegal to acquire territory by conquest i.e. the threat or use of force. After the 1948 war, Palestine was still Palestine. (see the 1949 Armistice Agreements) However, Palestine was occupied. No Palestinian territory has ever been ceded to a foreign entity.

Fact is there were no Muslim Palestinians when the Jews were first in the land. The overfwhelming majority of todays Palestinians reside on land they stole without any titles or deeds whatsoever.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Fact is there were no Muslim Palestinians when the Jews were first in the land. The overfwhelming majority of todays Palestinians reside on land they stole without any titles or deeds whatsoever.

Virtually all Palestine cities, towns, and villages predate the Ottoman Empire. Titles and deeds had not been invented yet.

 

[MJB12741]

Virtually all Palestine cities, towns, and villages predate the Ottoman Empire. Titles and deeds had not been invented yet.

Those Palestinians were mostly Jews. And yes, one can argue that too was stolen land. Only the State of Israel in 1948 was not stolen land by UN general assembly on resolution 181.

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

There never was one - since Israel made sure of that in 1948 by simply driving out the Arab and Muslim population and claiming all land to be those of a newly founded Israel.
And no Muslim ever occupied Israel - since there was no Israel before 1948, - you nitwit.
But Muslims had been settling in, ruling and cultivating for 1400 years that area - now called Israel.

When two parties to a dispute go to court to settle their difference, the first words the judge utters are, "start from the beginning, and present any evidence you have."

The 9th Century BCE archaeological find, the Mesha Stele, commissioned by the king of Moab (present-day Jordan), mentions Israel and a king of Israel, namely, Omri. The Mesha Stele is currently housed at the Louvre in Paris, France.

If you claim that the land belongs to the "Palestinians" then it should be reflected in the archaeological records. Cite one archaeological evidence for the "Palestinians."

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

The Palestinians didn't declare war. They were peasant farmers and shop owners. They had no weapons. The Zionists destroyed more than 300 Arab villages.

In 1947, the Jewish people agreed to something the Arabs rejected -- an Arab/Palestine state.

"We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East." - David Ben-Gurion, The Declaration on the establishment of the State of Israel, 14 May 1948

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and Crusades." -- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, on the eve of the 1948 Arab invasion.

The Jewish people's extended hand of peace and good neighborliness were met by bellicosity and genocidal talk of massacre by the Arabs.

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

It is true that indigenous Palestinians were Jews.

Professor Azmi Bishara (b. 1956), Israeli Arab, currently living in Qatar:

"There is no "Palestinian nation" When were there any Palestinians?
Until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the south of 'Greater Syria' another recent invention. There is only an Arab nation!
The word 'Palestine' itself is a colonial invention used by the Romans in order to erase the Jewish identity of Judea and Israel.
Even the 'Palestinian National Charter' recognizes all the Jews living in the region prior to the 1948 war as 'Palestinians'*
Its an intellectual fad, divorced from the concerns of uneducated people."

*The Palestine Liberation Organization original 1964 Covenant:

Article 7. "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine."

 

[Kruska]

When two parties to a dispute go to court to settle their difference, the first words the judge utters are, "start from the beginning, and present any evidence you have."

The 9th Century BCE archaeological find, the Mesha Stele, commissioned by the king of Moab (present-day Jordan), mentions Israel and a king of Israel, namely, Omri. The Mesha Stele is currently housed at the Louvre in Paris, France.

If you claim that the land belongs to the "Palestinians" then it should be reflected in the archaeological records. Cite one archaeological evidence for the "Palestinians."

First off all I personally find it ridiculous to dig 3000 years into the past to find some claim arguments for a 1948 "court case" . Just imagine the world chaos if everyone would share the Zionist mindset.

Secondly those people are only termed Palestinians due to the former English protectorate of Palestine - starting in 1918
Any Person living in that particular area Palestine, including Jewish people has their historic roots not just in British Palestine - but throughout the Levant and neighboring countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. And these former cultures existed long before an Israel existed in the proximity of Palestine for roughly 50 years around 1200BC. There was never a conclusive state or Kingdom of Israel with respective territorial borders - but individual strong-points claimed by Jewish people and others - whoever had the respective population majority or the better army at any given time.

From 100AD onward until 1947 - almost 2000 years - the Jewish community was an absolute minority in that vicinity - being ruled by any other kind of dynasty except a Jewish one.
So due to Zionism in the early 19th century this "revival" - dream of a newly created land of Israel was reborn - focusing onto a territory that was inhabited for almost 2000 years by non Jewish people - who at average represented more then 80% of the respective population.

The idea (Zionism) that 80% of people living in an area for 2000 years are supposed to give up their lands to accommodate a Jewish state is absolutely ridiculous. But also clearly demonstrates the mindset of those Zionists.

Before WW2 - obviously no one wanted Jewish people - the % that was allowed to find refuge outside Germany, Austria, Sudetenland and later Czechia is laughable. (My Grandfather sold his share of a company he had owned with a long time Jewish friend and partner for peanuts - to enable his partner and his family to immigrate into the USA)
My Grandfather basically lost his entire fortune.

Those living in Poland or Russia were also persecuted and no one cared. Due to Hitler's mass-murders - approximately 1.5 million survives were spread throughout Europe. And again no one wanted them. Naturally these survivors hanged up their hopes and future onto the Zionist vision of creating their own state - since no one wanted them foremost the USA and UK came up with this "brilliant" idea to settle them in British Palestine. Where the people in Palestine ever asked? no absolutely not - therefore in absolute breach with the UN convention.

Madagascar was brought in as an alternative - don't ask me why, and even Australia (In my opinion the best and most viable choice) However Britain/Australia - no idea why - totally rejected this promising and logical proposal.

So history took it's know course - 5.5? million Palestinians until today without an own country and any realistic economic prospects and many been driven and are still driven of their former properties and lands.

Will there ever be a fair solution? I highly doubt it since NONE of the many involved parties is really interested to solve the matter.