The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Shusha]

Why Israel Has No ‘Right to Exist’

Apologists for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians claim the state has a “right to exist” in an effort to legitimize the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Zionists taking it upon themselves to try to defend Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people frequently level the charge that its critics are attempting to “delegitimize” the self-described “Jewish state”. Israel, they counter, has a “right to exist”. But they are mistaken.

This is not to single out Israel. There is no such thing as a state’s “right to exist”, period. No such right is recognized under international law. Nor could there logically be any such right. The very concept is absurd. Individuals, not abstract political entities, have rights.

The right to self-determination, unlike the absurd concept of a state’s “right to exist”, is recognized under international law. It is a right that is explicitly guaranteed, for example, under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the state of Israel is party.

The proper framework for discussion therefore is the right to self-determination, and it is precisely to obfuscate this truth that the propaganda claim that Israel has a “right to exist” is frequently made. It is necessary for Israel’s apologists to so shift the framework for discussion because, in the framework of the right to self-determination, it is obviously Israel that rejects the rights of the Palestinians and not vice versa.

And it is not only in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory that Israel’s rejectionism is manifest. This rejection of Palestinians’ rights was also manifest in the very means by which Israel was established.

Why Israel Has No 'Right to Exist'

Wow. Where do you find these articles, Tinmore? This one begins with what is actually a solid premise and then proceeds to destroy its own premise in a pretty methodical way.

 

[Spartacactcus]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

 

[Shusha]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

 

[Spartacactcus]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

You seem to decide what people care about and what they do not. That is not what a discussion is about.

The thread IS about the establishment of the State of Israel until May 1948.

Would you like to discuss what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939? (What happened?????? To Whom????? Whose rights were trampled on????? )

There are other threads which deal with post May 1948.

 

[rylah]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?

 

[Spartacactcus]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

You seem to decide what people care about and what they do not. That is not what a discussion is about.

The thread IS about the establishment of the State of Israel until May 1948.

Would you like to discuss what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939? (What happened?????? To Whom????? Whose rights were trampled on????? )

There are other threads which deal with post May 1948.

People tell you, show you , what they care about or not in their posts and that's exactly how discussions work.

The post I added here is relevant to the discussion on the Mandate period seeing as it is, wrongly , being used to justify violations and crimes after it has expired.

 

[Spartacactcus]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?

There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such. Nor does it say anyhting about it meaning the whole of Palestine either

And then that was only to be carried out if it didn't impact on the rights of the none Jewish population which it clearly did

 

[rylah]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?

There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such

Of course there's, dance around all you want,
but it specifically mentions Re-constitution of the Jewish Nation.

Q. Does it refer to any Arab sovereignty?

 

[Spartacactcus]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?

There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such

Of course there's,
specifically mentions re-constitution of the Jewish nation.

Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?

Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?

There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such

Let us make this clear. If the Mandate for Palestine was not a Mandate to create a Jewish homeland, on historical Jewish Land, then the other 3 Mandates are just as not valid as the one for Palestine. That is what you are saying.

There were 4 Mandates. All 4 were valid. The only reason there were no attacks on Kurds, or other indigenous people In Syria, Lebanon or Iraq.......is because they were inhabited by mostly Arab Muslims. Yes, the ones who came from Arabia after the 7th Century. The Palestinian Arabs are part of the Arabs who moved into the region and took over until the Crusaders and then the Ottoman Empire took it from them.

The Arabs came, the Jews were there.
The Crusaders came, the Jews were there.
The Ottomans came, the Jews were there.
The British came, the Jews were there.

The Kurds continue to fight for their right to be sovereign on their historical land, being attacked by the Turkish and Arab Muslims from time to time.

At no time, have the Muslims fought the Ottomans, the Crusaders or the British to give the Jews the right to sovereignty over their own historical land. The Jews had to fight for it by themselves post WWI.

And that is exactly what the Jews and Israel have had to do since then. And will continue to fight for their right to have sovereignty over their own Historical Land, just like any other Indigenous people anywhere in the world.

The Palestine the Romans referred to was the Province of Judea. In other words, the homeland of the Jews. Not of the Arabs, who were not there at the time.

Israel gives more rights to non Jews in the State of Israel, than Jews, and other non Muslims, ever got living in any Muslim conquered land.

Just look at the rights given to non Muslims between 1948 and 1967 in Judea and Samaria, that is, if you can find any Jews left living in that area after the 1948 war. How about in Hebron after 1929?

 

[rylah]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?

There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such

Of course there's,
specifically mentions re-constitution of the Jewish nation.

Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?

Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

The only organization vested with final legal authority was the sovereign Jewish Nation,
the sole goal for which the mandate was established in the first place.

The UN had no legal authority or sovereignty to effectively decide anything,
more so itself bound by international law that prohibits negation of any
rights of the Jewish Nation to and in that land.

Beyond that, they can wish the moon was made of cheese,
and that's about the extent of their authority.

Simple as that.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?

There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such

Of course there's,
specifically mentions re-constitution of the Jewish nation.

Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?

Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

The problem continues to be that the Palestinians do not want a State on the territories "occupied" by Israel since 1967, a discussion which belongs on other threads.

Since the Mandate for Palestine was declared, the Muslims have worked very hard to deny the Jews the creation of any Jewish State on their own historical land.

And they continue to work very hard to delegitimize and put an end to that sovereign State, including giving themselves the name Palestinians, since 1964. Why were they not Palestinians before 1964? Before Arafat and the KGB came up with that idea in Moscow in 1964?

Palestinians are the only group of people who decided on a national identity Only to delegitimize another people, and to destroy their sovereign State.

They have not demanded that the Hashemite Arab Muslims return that part of the Mandate for Palestine to them because they allegedly would have the right to any and all part of it. That is 78% of the whole Mandate.
They are all Arabs. They are all Muslims.

If the Jews in Israel converted to Islam, the war against Israel would be over in a second.

 

[Shusha]

Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void.

The Mandate never became null (legally invalid) nor void (legally invalid).

Its purpose was fulfilled, therefore it came to an end as it was always intended to.

 

[Shusha]

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

The civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish population are not being abused in the slightest by Israel. (In fact, the rights of the Jewish population of Israel ARE being abused.)

You toss words around, as many do, but don't seem to have a grasp of the meaning of the words. What ARE the objective civil and religious rights of non-dominant populations in any country? List them. For example, what are the civil and religious rights of Jews in Iran? What are the civil and religious rights of Chinese in the USA? What are the civil and religious rights of Indians in Canada?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void.

The Mandate never became null (legally invalid) nor void (legally invalid).

Its purpose was fulfilled, therefore it came to an end as it was always intended to.

Except that Israel sits on Palestinian land and the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty over their land,

 

[Shusha]

Except that Israel sits on Palestinian land and the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty over their land,

Israel sits on territory designated for Jewish self-determination and the RE-constitution of Israel, Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinians have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as well. Some would argue they have that already in Jordan. Some would argue that they don't have it yet.

Peoples don't have rights to land. They have rights to self-determination in their homeland. Different things.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

avalon.law.yale.edu

Don't be silly. Of course the claims are not illegitimate.

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed. Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary. The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.

The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.

The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?

There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such

Of course there's,
specifically mentions re-constitution of the Jewish nation.

Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?

Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

You are an antisemite, so filter everything through your Jew hatred.

Those of us who are not afflicted with such realize that the Palestinian mandate extended all the way to the eastern border of what is now Jordan and that the Arabs already received the lion's share of the land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Except that Israel sits on Palestinian land and the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty over their land,

Israel sits on territory designated for Jewish self-determination and the RE-constitution of Israel, Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinians have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as well. Some would argue they have that already in Jordan. Some would argue that they don't have it yet.

Peoples don't have rights to land. They have rights to self-determination in their homeland. Different things.

Designated by whom?

 

[Shusha]

Except that Israel sits on Palestinian land and the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty over their land,

Israel sits on territory designated for Jewish self-determination and the RE-constitution of Israel, Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinians have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as well. Some would argue they have that already in Jordan. Some would argue that they don't have it yet.

Peoples don't have rights to land. They have rights to self-determination in their homeland. Different things.

Designated by whom?

Well, its an interesting question. The Jewish people essentially made an application for their right to self-determination be recognized. That application was accepted.

What is the problem with that?