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

[Rehmani]

How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.

You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...

But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...

Blame THEM -- not Jews....

Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?

Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission.. Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable... Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits... LOL...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West Bank and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank, rather than continue the attacks from Palestinians...

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

But who the invader are to change the people life style or change the face of Holly Land by enforcing new countries in to accommodate israel ro make israel legitimate. "Quote from your previous post Brits are responsible," You are right but they have gone now israel is there and causing all this pain to Peace full holly land last for almost 1500 years while jew spend hardly 500 years in holly land in total as vagrant/gypsy. And Jew want to become the owner. Either way they can not be prove their legitimate status, means by time or by as a indigenous.

 

[Rehmani]

Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission.. Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable... Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits... LOL...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.

But its not make Israel Legitimate.

I disagree and I find you a terrible human being for not answering my question. One question. Sad really.

Answer given to legitimate status , you are trying to change false and it is called propaganda. And who you are, have no manner.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.

But its not make Israel Legitimate.

I disagree and I find you a terrible human being for not answering my question. One question. Sad really.

Answer given to legitimate status , you are trying to change false and it is called propaganda. And who you are, have no manner.

I ask others. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946?

 

[flacaltenn]

You are right but they have gone now israel is there and causing all this pain to Peace full holly land last for almost 1500 years while jew spend hardly 500 years in holly land in total as vagrant/gypsy. And Jew want to become the owner.

It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..

I suspect you respect Holy books... So when "returning to Jerusalem is mentioned many times and still is recited in many prayers for 1400 years --- it's not fantasy fiction.. There are plenty of Holy sites for Jews including the 2 magnificent Temples.. Which at the time was the CENTRAL FOCUS of Jewish existence.. Many Jewish kings ruled from what is now Israel... And sites in some existing cities show Jewish heritage pre-dating the Romans.

And it's not just Old Testament tales.. All the apostles of Jesus came from cities that now span the breadth of Israel... And all those stories are Jewish stories as well...

Vagrants/gypsies -- HARDLY... Moses wandered 40 years in the desert to enter the Holy Land...

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I ask others. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946?

You won't get an honest answer.

I have yet to encounter an Islamic propagandist who is willing to tell the truth.

 

[Shusha]

• The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements ( the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

Sure. They are. One of the States is Jordan. The other is the Jewish homeland. Israel.

​

 

[Shusha]

But israel is not a legitimate nation.

Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate". How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not? What is the criteria?

​

 

[Shusha]

But who the invader are to change the people life style or change the face of Holly Land by enforcing new ...

If I understand the meaning correctly you are asking, "what right does the invader have to change the life style of the people or the face of the Holy Land by enforcing new...."

You do understand that the Muslim Arabs literally built a mosque on top of the Jewish people's Holy Place, yes? You do understand that the Muslim Arabs actually prevent the Jewish people from prayer, worship, re-building, preservation, and agency and autonomy over their own Holy Place, yes?

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well, this is not a correct implication at all. You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

• The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

• The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

(COMMENT)

POINT 1:

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 (actually ealier). None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈ Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈ Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈ Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈ Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty. Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government [the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)].

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states. The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​

POINT 2:

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines. These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​

(EPILOG)

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century. In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined. Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈ The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈ No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

◈ In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

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,

Well, this is not a correct implication at all. You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

• The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

• The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

(COMMENT)

POINT 1:

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 (actually ealier). None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈ Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈ Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈ Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈ Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty. Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government [the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)].

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states. The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​

POINT 2:

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines. These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​

(EPILOG)

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century. In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined. Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈ The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈ No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

◈ In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

Most Respectfully,
R

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.

 

[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,

Well, this is not a correct implication at all. You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

• The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

• The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

(COMMENT)

POINT 1:

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 (actually ealier). None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈ Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈ Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈ Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈ Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty. Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government [the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)].

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states. The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​

POINT 2:

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines. These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​

(EPILOG)

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century. In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined. Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈ The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈ No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

◈ In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines.

Indeed, and those military demarcation lines did not have any affect on Palestine's international borders when they were created or remove.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Well, this is not a correct implication at all. You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

• The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

• The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

(COMMENT)

POINT 1:

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 (actually ealier). None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈ Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈ Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈ Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈ Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty. Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government [the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)].

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states. The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​

POINT 2:

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines. These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​

(EPILOG)

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century. In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined. Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈ The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈ No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

◈ In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines.

Indeed, and those military demarcation lines did not have any affect on Palestine's international borders when they were created or remove.

Then tell that to your Palestinian friends. They're the ones who consider the 1949/ 67 lines to be sacrosanct, much more so than the Israelis.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Well, this is not a correct implication at all. You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

• The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

• The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

(COMMENT)

POINT 1:

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 (actually ealier). None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈ Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈ Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈ Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈ Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty. Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government [the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)].

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states. The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​

POINT 2:

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines. These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​

(EPILOG)

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century. In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined. Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈ The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈ No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

◈ In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

Most Respectfully,
R

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.

Who was their elected leader in 1946?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Well, this is not a correct implication at all. You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

• The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

• The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

(COMMENT)

POINT 1:

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 (actually ealier). None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈ Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈ Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈ Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈ Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty. Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government [the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)].

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states. The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​

POINT 2:

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines. These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​

(EPILOG)

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century. In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined. Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈ The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈ No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

◈ In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

Most Respectfully,
R

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.

Who was their elected leader in 1946?

And Palestine was not an independent country, despite the Treaty of Lausanne (which does not even mention Palestine).

 

[flacaltenn]

What posts?
I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?

Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.

Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.

Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?

Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.

International law is not a popular vote,
a contract between sovereign nations is it?

But israel is not a legitimate nation.
Then what is a popular vote?

A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...

No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?

And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.

Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.

Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?

Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.

International law is not a popular vote,
a contract between sovereign nations is it?

But israel is not a legitimate nation.
Then what is a popular vote?

A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...

No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?

And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..

If anything, it's Rehmani's country, Pakistan, which is illegitimate. It took a huge chunk out of India, and out of the indigenous Hindus' nation, illegally. It's funny that Rehmani keeps referring to Israel as the "Holy Land", yet who was it that made that land holy in the first place? The Jews, of course!

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well, this is not a correct implication at all. You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

• The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

• The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

(COMMENT)

POINT 1:

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 (actually ealier). None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈ Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈ Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈ Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈ Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946
​

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty. Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government [the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)].

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states. The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.
​

POINT 2:

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines. These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​

(EPILOG)

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century. In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined. Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈ The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈ No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

◈ In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

WRONG !

They were citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Then on the surrender and the renouncement of rights and title (Article 16) the Mandate for Palestine and the associated Orders in Council and the Citizenship Orders, they became citizens of the Government of Palestine (under the control of Great Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..

Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But israel is not a legitimate nation.

Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate". How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not? What is the criteria?

​

Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.

 

[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,

Well, this is not a correct implication at all. You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

• The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

• The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

(COMMENT)

POINT 1:

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 (actually ealier). None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈ Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈ Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈ Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈ Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946
​

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty. Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government [the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)].

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states. The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​

POINT 2:

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines. These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​

(EPILOG)

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century. In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined. Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈ The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈ No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

◈ In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

WRONG !

They were citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Then on the surrender and the renouncement of rights and title (Article 16) the Mandate for Palestine and the associated Orders in Council and the Citizenship Orders, they became citizens of the Government of Palestine (under the control of Great Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are just trying to monkey motion the Palestinians out of their rights.