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

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians on 15 May of every year mark the ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist gangs in 1948.
72 years later, the Nakba is ongoing. Israel is still displacing and colonizing, and refugees are still denied their right of return.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestinians on 15 May of every year mark the ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist gangs in 1948.
72 years later, the Nakba is ongoing. Israel is still displacing and colonizing, and refugees are still denied their right of return.

"We lost, we want a do over"

 

[Hollie]

Palestinians on 15 May of every year mark the ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist gangs in 1948.
72 years later, the Nakba is ongoing. Israel is still displacing and colonizing, and refugees are still denied their right of return.

What ethnic cleansing are you rattling on about?

 

[rylah]

 

[rylah]

How the British Mandate Manipulated Arab demographics in the Land of Israel

New research reveals the way the British Mandate allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to immigrate to the Land of Israel while the gates to the Land were closed to Jews. Today, those Arabs claim that they have been here since time immemorial…

One of the most commonly repeated claims made by spokesmen of Arabs from Judea and Samaria is the claim that they have been connected to the Land for many generations, but new research by Dr. Rivka Shpak-Lissak shows that this is not true at all.

The research, which is included in its totality in her book When and How did the Arabs and Muslims Immigrate to the Land of Israel (Yediot Aharonot Press), reveals how the regime of the British Mandate brought about the flow of hundreds of thousands of Arabs to the Land of Israel. This occurred despite the fact that the purpose of the Mandate was to establish a national home for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel.

Dr. Shpak-Lissak states that the British Mandate betrayed its function and acted in a manner totally opposite to its avowed purpose. In an interview with Arutz 7, she described the main point of her research, which is that “the Transjordanian Border Control Corps, whose role was to patrol the Jordanian borders with Lebanon and Syria until Akaba, received orders directly from the Mandate to ignore the entry of Arabs to the Land but not to allow entry to Jews to the Land, because there had been attempts of Jews trying to enter via Syria”.

Shpak-Lissak also says: “The border was totally open and anyone who wanted to enter could have done it. Sinai also was open, without oversight, and anyone could have passed through. In this way, many Arabs and Muslims took advantage of the possibility to enter”.

“They wanted to enter because the conditions in the Land were much better, Jews as well as Christian organizations such as the Templars and the Mandate government were investing money here. As a result, there was development, the standard of living rose and wages were higher than in the Arab countries, so it is no wonder that they wanted to enter”.

Research data shows that “the British did not want the Jews to establish a Jewish state. They forsook and betrayed the role that was assigned to them by the League of Nations and then by the UN to establish a national home for the Jewish People”.

The dimensions of Arab immigration that occurred under the British Mandate and under their protection cannot be stated exactly, but it is possible to get an idea from the words of a Muslim Sheikh at the a national assemble that was held in Jaffa on the 9th of April, 1940. “He said at that time, ‘Thanks to the British Mandate, we have grown from a half million to a million’. He said that in 1940, but by ’47, there were already a million and two hundred thousand”.

During the interview, Shpak-Lissak also said, relating to her research: “I examined documents of the Hagana, the Zionist archives and the state archives and I discovered how it happened that in Arab settlements the population increased not from natural growth and how, throughout the Land, new settlements were established or joined already existing settlements. There is research by Prof. David Grossman and Prof. Moshe Breuer that relates to the southern part of the Land and shows that at least 25,000 Egyptians settled in these villages”.

Regarding the Egyptian immigration into the Land of Israel Shpak-Lissak stated that “Most of the refugees in Gaza are Egyptian and the best proof of this is that in an interview in 2012, a Fatah representative plainly stated that ‘Half of us are Egyptian’. They have relatives in Egypt and other Arab countries. There is another proof that fifty thousand Houranis from southern Syria entered the Land freely and told Eliyahu Eilat, a Jewish Agency representative, that they can pass freely by way of the Yarmouk River. This is how the British increased the number of Muslims in the Land, all with the aim of preventing a Jewish majority and establishing a Jewish state”.

Regarding British interests, she explained: “The Arab states have oil, so it is very important to maintain good relations with the Arab countries, who do not want a Jewish state. Moreover, there is also the Suez Canal, which is controlled by Egypt and it is important to have good relations with Egypt. British imperialist interests dictated that she would support the Arabs and not the Jews”.

Dr. Shpak-Lissak also said that “During the First World War, the British army brought in Egyptian workers to work in the Egyptian military camps. They were brought here [to the Land of Israel] and remained, and in the Second World War, instead of using local residents they brought in Egyptian and Syrian workers. They brought laborers in trucks from Syria and Lebanon to work for the British army”.

Shpak-Lissak’s book is a continuation of the first part of her research in which she examined the era that preceded the Mandate period, on the events regarding the Muslim presence in the Land of Israel beginning in the year 640, when they came from the Arab Peninsula and conquered the Land. “All of the research, which includes testimonies by Muslim tourists, shows that in the entire period of the Arab occupation there was a Christian majority here. The Arabs did not settle in the Land. The Bedouins, who were the conquering army, proceeded southward and those who remained preferred to camp on the border of the desert. In the large cities in the Land there were approximately thirty thousand Arabs who served the regime and for the entire period until the middle of the 14th century, the Christians were the largest group. It was the Mamluks who destroyed the Christian majority, which had begun to shrink even prior; during the four hundred years of Arab rule, the population had decreased from three million to a half million. The Arabs destroyed the economy and the security of the Land. In addition to the massacres and slaughter, there was a gradual Islamization, which ended around the middle of the 14th century when the Christians were eliminated as the majority group”.

“The Jews have a history of at least a thousand years before the Arab conquest. We never left the Land by our free will. The first holocaust of the Jewish People was here. Anyone who knows history knows that we were here, and the Palestinians are trying to erase this. They used to claim that they are the Jebusites, another time it was that they are the Canaanites and then they were actually of Jewish extraction but there is no proof for this in the research. The fact that the Jews are not the most beloved of peoples has helped them. Goebbels said that if you tell a lie a thousand times it will be accepted. Indeed, the Arab and Palestinian propaganda has achieved this; they have told a total lie and anti-Semitism helped them along. The Europeans played no small part in this”.

In all of her interviews, Dr. Shpak-Lissak emphasizes that does not identify with the Israeli Right, however, she presents her research in Israel and abroad because she is disgusted with the lies and demonization of Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: And you have the gall to imply that someone dodged the issue.

What war did the Palestinians lose?
When was the surrender?
What was in the peace treaty?

(COMMENT)

The Arab-Israeli Conflict [a regional armed international Armed Conflict (IAC) wherein "no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required] involved the multinational Arab League Forces on the assault against the Israeli Forces. The Arab League Forces has the stated objective: "intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." The Arab League was of the opinion that as the "Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order." It was based on the premise that the UN Palestine Commission was not a "legally constituted authority."

The Arab League intervened on behalf of the Arab Palestinians with the plan to "set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principle of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter." Of course, in reality, the Arab League nations saw this as an opportunity for territorial expansion.

(POINT OF REFERENCE)

When anyone says that the - "Palestinians lost the war" - what they are really describing is the "lost opportunity" for the "inhabitants under the principle of self-determination" to establish a self-governing institution. They lost in respect to the pre-Conflict apportionment by the UN Recommendation to an Arab country. Jordan and Egypt staked-out their territorial gains while the remainder of the Arab League participants had no appreciable advantage to claim. There was no territory for the inhabitants to claim under the right of self-determination.

OUTCOMES:​

• Israel did not win - merely - successfully defended.​

• The Arab League gained territory.​

• The Arab Palestinians (inhabitants) lost the opportunity to be self-governing.​

You (P F Tinmore) seem to, a majority of times, take the myopic and narrow political view - with the visual images of reality that is just out of focus. You are correct only in the most limited strand of what happened in that the Arab Palestinians (the inhabitants) contributed nothing to the cause of self-determination, and therefore lost nothing in the cause.

The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee in 1945 (not the Arab Palestinians). The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee as the "supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine" (not the Arab Palestinians). And the 1948 conflict was waged by the Arab League (not the Arab Palestinians).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MartyNYC]

Arab palestine? No p in Arabic.

Palestine was a fictional Roman name imposed on Jews, about 2,000 years ago, referring to Philistines who were related to Greeks.

No Arabs here in Jewish Judea...

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: And you have the gall to imply that someone dodged the issue.

What war did the Palestinians lose?
When was the surrender?
What was in the peace treaty?

(COMMENT)

The Arab-Israeli Conflict [a regional armed international Armed Conflict (IAC) wherein "no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required] involved the multinational Arab League Forces on the assault against the Israeli Forces. The Arab League Forces has the stated objective: "intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." The Arab League was of the opinion that as the "Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order." It was based on the premise that the UN Palestine Commission was not a "legally constituted authority."

The Arab League intervened on behalf of the Arab Palestinians with the plan to "set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principle of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter." Of course, in reality, the Arab League nations saw this as an opportunity for territorial expansion.

(POINT OF REFERENCE)

When anyone says that the - "Palestinians lost the war" - what they are really describing is the "lost opportunity" for the "inhabitants under the principle of self-determination" to establish a self-governing institution. They lost in respect to the pre-Conflict apportionment by the UN Recommendation to an Arab country. Jordan and Egypt staked-out their territorial gains while the remainder of the Arab League participants had no appreciable advantage to claim. There was no territory for the inhabitants to claim under the right of self-determination.

OUTCOMES:​

• Israel did not win - merely - successfully defended.​

• The Arab League gained territory.​

• The Arab Palestinians (inhabitants) lost the opportunity to be self-governing.​

You (P F Tinmore) seem to, a majority of times, take the myopic and narrow political view - with the visual images of reality that is just out of focus. You are correct only in the most limited strand of what happened in that the Arab Palestinians (the inhabitants) contributed nothing to the cause of self-determination, and therefore lost nothing in the cause.

The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee in 1945 (not the Arab Palestinians). The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee as the "supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine" (not the Arab Palestinians). And the 1948 conflict was waged by the Arab League (not the Arab Palestinians).


Most Respectfully,
R

You really have to unpack the "1948 war." Who were the players? It was not "the Arabs" attacking Israel as the Israeli bullshit would have you believe.

Palestine The allied powers mapped out new states in that area. Each state had defined international borders. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and the inhabitants became citizens of those new states by international law. (The rule of nationality and state succession.) The Mandate affirmed Palestinian citizenship by domestic law in the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925. The Palestinians became the sovereign people in their new state. During the Mandate period, Britain prevented the establishment of a democratic government including a military. By 1939 the Palestinians were disarmed and their leaders were exiled or killed. They were a completely civilian population.

Israel Israel was a foreign colonial project. (Their term not mine.) Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was funded by foreign money and was populated by foreign settlers. Britain facilitated the creation of "a state within a state" (Britain's term not mine.) including a military. Britain used its military to provide cover for this colonial project.

The Arab States There was not much there. Lebanon only had a few thousand troops. They could not even protect their own borders. Syria was not much better. They entered Palestine for a brief period then withdrew. The Zionists promised Jordan (The only real military in the area.) the West Bank and $3M a year for 5 years if it did not attack Israel. Jordan moved its troops into the West Bank to defend its promised territory. Egypt only managed to defend the Gaza Strip.

There were two things going on at that time. The Zionists had a military complete with command and control. They started conscripting troops by December of 1947. They began attacking and clearing the Palestinian civilians in 1947 and there were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees by the time any Arab army entered Palestine.

Then the 1948 war began.

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: And you have the gall to imply that someone dodged the issue.

What war did the Palestinians lose?
When was the surrender?
What was in the peace treaty?

(COMMENT)

The Arab-Israeli Conflict [a regional armed international Armed Conflict (IAC) wherein "no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required] involved the multinational Arab League Forces on the assault against the Israeli Forces. The Arab League Forces has the stated objective: "intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." The Arab League was of the opinion that as the "Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order." It was based on the premise that the UN Palestine Commission was not a "legally constituted authority."

The Arab League intervened on behalf of the Arab Palestinians with the plan to "set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principle of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter." Of course, in reality, the Arab League nations saw this as an opportunity for territorial expansion.

(POINT OF REFERENCE)

When anyone says that the - "Palestinians lost the war" - what they are really describing is the "lost opportunity" for the "inhabitants under the principle of self-determination" to establish a self-governing institution. They lost in respect to the pre-Conflict apportionment by the UN Recommendation to an Arab country. Jordan and Egypt staked-out their territorial gains while the remainder of the Arab League participants had no appreciable advantage to claim. There was no territory for the inhabitants to claim under the right of self-determination.

OUTCOMES:​

• Israel did not win - merely - successfully defended.​

• The Arab League gained territory.​

• The Arab Palestinians (inhabitants) lost the opportunity to be self-governing.​

You (P F Tinmore) seem to, a majority of times, take the myopic and narrow political view - with the visual images of reality that is just out of focus. You are correct only in the most limited strand of what happened in that the Arab Palestinians (the inhabitants) contributed nothing to the cause of self-determination, and therefore lost nothing in the cause.

The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee in 1945 (not the Arab Palestinians). The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee as the "supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine" (not the Arab Palestinians). And the 1948 conflict was waged by the Arab League (not the Arab Palestinians).


Most Respectfully,
R

You really have to unpack the "1948 war." Who were the players? It was not "the Arabs" attacking Israel as the Israeli bullshit would have you believe.

Palestine The allied powers mapped out new states in that area. Each state had defined international borders. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and the inhabitants became citizens of those new states by international law. (The rule of nationality and state succession.) The Mandate affirmed Palestinian citizenship by domestic law in the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925. The Palestinians became the sovereign people in their new state. During the Mandate period, Britain prevented the establishment of a democratic government including a military. By 1939 the Palestinians were disarmed and their leaders were exiled or killed. They were a completely civilian population.

Israel Israel was a foreign colonial project. (Their term not mine.) Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was funded by foreign money and was populated by foreign settlers. Britain facilitated the creation of "a state within a state" (Britain's term not mine.) including a military. Britain used its military to provide cover for this colonial project.

The Arab States There was not much there. Lebanon only had a few thousand troops. They could not even protect their own borders. Syria was not much better. They entered Palestine for a brief period then withdrew. The Zionists promised Jordan (The only real military in the area.) the West Bank and $3M a year for 5 years if it did not attack Israel. Jordan moved its troops into the West Bank to defend its promised territory. Egypt only managed to defend the Gaza Strip.

There were two things going on at that time. The Zionists had a military complete with command and control. They started conscripting troops by December of 1947. They began attacking and clearing the Palestinian civilians in 1947 and there were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees by the time any Arab army entered Palestine.

Then the 1948 war began.

Still trolling? Psychiatry can help.

As renowned Arab scholar Fouad Ajami notes, Arabs attacked Israel
The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: And you have the gall to imply that someone dodged the issue.

What war did the Palestinians lose?
When was the surrender?
What was in the peace treaty?

(COMMENT)

The Arab-Israeli Conflict [a regional armed international Armed Conflict (IAC) wherein "no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required] involved the multinational Arab League Forces on the assault against the Israeli Forces. The Arab League Forces has the stated objective: "intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." The Arab League was of the opinion that as the "Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order." It was based on the premise that the UN Palestine Commission was not a "legally constituted authority."

The Arab League intervened on behalf of the Arab Palestinians with the plan to "set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principle of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter." Of course, in reality, the Arab League nations saw this as an opportunity for territorial expansion.

(POINT OF REFERENCE)

When anyone says that the - "Palestinians lost the war" - what they are really describing is the "lost opportunity" for the "inhabitants under the principle of self-determination" to establish a self-governing institution. They lost in respect to the pre-Conflict apportionment by the UN Recommendation to an Arab country. Jordan and Egypt staked-out their territorial gains while the remainder of the Arab League participants had no appreciable advantage to claim. There was no territory for the inhabitants to claim under the right of self-determination.

OUTCOMES:​

• Israel did not win - merely - successfully defended.​

• The Arab League gained territory.​

• The Arab Palestinians (inhabitants) lost the opportunity to be self-governing.​

You (P F Tinmore) seem to, a majority of times, take the myopic and narrow political view - with the visual images of reality that is just out of focus. You are correct only in the most limited strand of what happened in that the Arab Palestinians (the inhabitants) contributed nothing to the cause of self-determination, and therefore lost nothing in the cause.

The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee in 1945 (not the Arab Palestinians). The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee as the "supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine" (not the Arab Palestinians). And the 1948 conflict was waged by the Arab League (not the Arab Palestinians).


Most Respectfully,
R

You really have to unpack the "1948 war." Who were the players? It was not "the Arabs" attacking Israel as the Israeli bullshit would have you believe.

Palestine The allied powers mapped out new states in that area. Each state had defined international borders. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and the inhabitants became citizens of those new states by international law. (The rule of nationality and state succession.) The Mandate affirmed Palestinian citizenship by domestic law in the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925. The Palestinians became the sovereign people in their new state. During the Mandate period, Britain prevented the establishment of a democratic government including a military. By 1939 the Palestinians were disarmed and their leaders were exiled or killed. They were a completely civilian population.

Israel Israel was a foreign colonial project. (Their term not mine.) Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was funded by foreign money and was populated by foreign settlers. Britain facilitated the creation of "a state within a state" (Britain's term not mine.) including a military. Britain used its military to provide cover for this colonial project.

The Arab States There was not much there. Lebanon only had a few thousand troops. They could not even protect their own borders. Syria was not much better. They entered Palestine for a brief period then withdrew. The Zionists promised Jordan (The only real military in the area.) the West Bank and $3M a year for 5 years if it did not attack Israel. Jordan moved its troops into the West Bank to defend its promised territory. Egypt only managed to defend the Gaza Strip.

There were two things going on at that time. The Zionists had a military complete with command and control. They started conscripting troops by December of 1947. They began attacking and clearing the Palestinian civilians in 1947 and there were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees by the time any Arab army entered Palestine.

Then the 1948 war began.

The usual bag of nonesense innuendo.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
It's like building a room for a non-born baby. A state must actually exist, function as one.

And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.

It doesn't matter where the Jewish Agency was established,
as long as it helped the sovereign nation achieve functioning statehood.

Kinda like your Narnia...vs responsible adults.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.

Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[rylah]

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.

Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.

Again, you're confusing mere geographical boundary with an actual state.
That Central Park has its infrastructure boundaries, doesn't indicate a "State of Central Park".

The baby must be born and function as independent body,
merely building a room for an unconvinced child doesn't make it alive.

Wishful thinking maybe, not the order of things.

 

[rylah]

And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

I know, selective vision would be more convenient.

And yet before the Treaty of Lausanne,
the designation of that territory was already defined by the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The Treaty of Lausanne did NOT obligate the Allied Powers on any matter relative to the Arab Palestinians or any post-War Inhabitants.

(Ω) The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty; they were NOT one of the "parties concerned." ​

(Ω) Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty. ​

(Ω) The Treaty did not define any international borders relative to Palestine. ​

(Ω) No clause pertaining to territory within the Treaty transferred any territory of the region under discussion to the post-War Inhabitants. ​

{LINK}

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​

​

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

Palestine The allied powers mapped out new states in that area. Each state had defined international borders. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and the inhabitants became citizens of those new states by international law.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 of the Treaty applies to the assignment of "Nationality" to the inhabitance of the territories. The obligation to the assignment of nationality was met by the creation of the 1925 Citizenship Law.

The entire purpose of this clause had to do with the elimination of the possibility of "Stateless People." It had nothing to do with the transfer of territory.

It doesn't matter where the Jewish Agency was established, as long as it helped the sovereign nation achieve functioning statehood.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers were responsible for the circumstances requiring the establishment of the Jewish Agency (Article 4, Mandate for Palestine).

{LINK}

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitates Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.

Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.

(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).

Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.

Sovereignty
‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international
order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.

Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.

(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).

​

Sovereignty​

Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​

Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​

​

​

​

Sovereignty ​

‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​

order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​

​

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.


Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.

Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------

ARTICLE 4​

​

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

You always claim that military power negates rights.

 

[MartyNYC]

And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

I know, selective vision would be more convenient.

And yet before the Treaty of Lausanne,
the designation of that territory was already defined by the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.

British Mandate, nicknamed palestine, was established at the San Remo Conference to implement the Balfour Declaration resulting in Israeli statehood, as stated in the actual mandate text. No mention of the creation of a state of palestine or a palestinian state. No palestinian nation existed.

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.

Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.

(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).

​

Sovereignty​

Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​

Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​

​

​

​

Sovereignty ​

‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​

order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​

​

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.


Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.

Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------

ARTICLE 4​

​

​

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

​

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

You always claim that military power negates rights.

Never been a palestinian nation. Palestine was merely Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate, an old Roman name imposed on Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Article 30 of the Treaty applies to the assignment of "Nationality" to the inhabitance of the territories. The obligation to the assignment of nationality was met by the creation of the 1925 Citizenship Law.

The entire purpose of this clause had to do with the elimination of the possibility of "Stateless People." It had nothing to do with the transfer of territory.

So they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.


You are too funny.