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

[P F Tinmore]

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

Some were. Most were not.

You need to read up.

I have read up and I took the time to explain it to you so you could write with clarity.

It's typical of the Islamist Pom Pom flailers to ignore that the history of the area is described by one tribe of Islamist invaders slaughtering the competing tribe.

It's a shame that Islamists are forever consigned to live in the past as warring tribes, always the angry, self-haters. The relevant first world shakes its collective head in disgust as Third world islamos' demand a voice in global matters while they step over the dead bodies of their co-Islamists.

You explained Israeli propaganda. Heard it already a gazillion times. It still does not make it true.

 

[Shusha]

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?

Hmmm. That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR. By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?

Hmmm. That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR. By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.

 

[montelatici]

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?

Hmmm. That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR. By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.

You are going off the deep end. You are claiming that people that were genetically mostly European, were born in Europe and whose ancestors as far as they could document were born in Europe had more right to live in Palestine than the native Palestinians. It is absurd.

"Study Traces Ashkenazi Roots to European Women Who Probably Converted to Judaism"

Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News

 

[Shusha]

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?

Hmmm. That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR. By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.

You are going off the deep end. You are claiming that people that were genetically mostly European, were born in Europe and whose ancestors as far as they could document were born in Europe had more right to live in Palestine than the native Palestinians. It is absurd.

"Study Traces Ashkenazi Roots to European Women Who Probably Converted to Judaism"

Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News

Not at all. I'm claiming that the Jewish people have an EQUAL right to sovereignty and self-determination in their place of origin and homeland. As opposed to the anti-Israel faction who claim that the Jewish people have lost their rights due to forced displacement and expulsion. AND I am pointing out the essential hypocrisy of those who claim that the Jewish people have lost their rights due to forced displacement and expulsion while "Palestinians" retain their rights when displaced and expelled.

Ultimately, I don't even care which side you end up on -- but you must end the hypocrisy of having two sets of standards for two sets of peoples. That is, frankly, just anti-semitism.

 

[montelatici]

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?

Hmmm. That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR. By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.

You are going off the deep end. You are claiming that people that were genetically mostly European, were born in Europe and whose ancestors as far as they could document were born in Europe had more right to live in Palestine than the native Palestinians. It is absurd.

"Study Traces Ashkenazi Roots to European Women Who Probably Converted to Judaism"

Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News

Not at all. I'm claiming that the Jewish people have an EQUAL right to sovereignty and self-determination in their place of origin and homeland. As opposed to the anti-Israel faction who claim that the Jewish people have lost their rights due to forced displacement and expulsion. AND I am pointing out the essential hypocrisy of those who claim that the Jewish people have lost their rights due to forced displacement and expulsion while "Palestinians" retain their rights when displaced and expelled.

Ultimately, I don't even care which side you end up on -- but you must end the hypocrisy of having two sets of standards for two sets of peoples. That is, frankly, just anti-semitism.

Europeans that convert to Hinduism, e.g. Hari Krishnas do not become indigenous to India.

In any case Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations refers to the "inhabitants". Not people living outside of the former territory of Turkey, named Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You pro-Palestinians bake these rights like they are cookies. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (non-binding) does not list either "inherent" or "inalienable" rights. All it says is that:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
​

Everything else is "man-made" and subject to religious, political and cultural interpretations. Sharia is different than Western Law. Justice is different in Muslim States than it is in Western States. Fair punishments are differnet in Western Law than Sharia.

The only "inherent" right is outline in International Law is found in Article 51, UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
​

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so naive, that it is sad.

You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​

First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. Nobody has the authority to change that.

The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..

(COMMENT)

Basic Rule of the World: You are not rewarded for loosing!

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)

ARTICLE 16.

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 recognised 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 neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority. BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that. If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves. Just who do you think they were going to ask? WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission. They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League. It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.

Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers (not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance). For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers. The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers. Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom. Nor was it customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​

The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:

To self determination without external interference.

To independence and sovereignty.

To territorial integrity.​

As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

(COMMENT)

The concepts of "independence" and "sovereignty" --- with "self-determination without external interference" and "territorial integrity" are man-made rights : ((Not inherent and not inalienable.))

• Under Chapter I, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter; "independence" and "sovereignty" --- and they have limitations.
• While Article 2 of the Charter mentions "self-determination" and "territorial integrity" --- first stem from the Theory of Westphalian Sovereignty (TWPS)(1648) and is a principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs. This would include the basic principle of non intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state. The
​

Whether we talk about the Emperors of the Roman Empire 100 BC, the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, or the Monarchies and Imperial Systems of the 17th thru 19th Centuries, OR today --- you will not find any consistent agreement between political entities, cultural societies, or religious regimes that have the same concept in Human Right.

TO YOUR QUESTION: How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

Your argument that somehow these imaginary rights you are attempting to apply at various decision points along the timeline, simply are not real. You cannot build your case that the Allied Powers did this or that in violation of this or that when the "rights" did not exist at that time. The TWPS applied just as equally to the Jewish People as it might have for the Arab Palestinian. As much as you would like to believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian had some superior claim, special anointed right (inherent, inalienable, or otherwise), or other moral, legal or ethical argument ... the fact is, the customary law for thousands of years has to have settled these territorial disputes in a trail by combat; the victor wins all. Even today, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), which made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; has been using terrorism, insurgencies and jihad to win by force that which they could not achieve through diplomacy. Both HAMAS and the PLO declared a Jihad and now the HoAP use every opportunity to fraudulently instigate or incite a conflict and then frivolously charge before the international community that they are being trounced in a manner that is unfair. This is all one and the same package.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

No, they weren't.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You pro-Palestinians bake these rights like they are cookies. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (non-binding) does not list either "inherent" or "inalienable" rights. All it says is that:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
​

Everything else is "man-made" and subject to religious, political and cultural interpretations. Sharia is different than Western Law. Justice is different in Muslim States than it is in Western States. Fair punishments are differnet in Western Law than Sharia.

The only "inherent" right is outline in International Law is found in Article 51, UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
​

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so naive, that it is sad.

You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​

First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. Nobody has the authority to change that.

The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..

(COMMENT)

Basic Rule of the World: You are not rewarded for loosing!

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)

ARTICLE 16.

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 recognised 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 neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority. BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that. If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves. Just who do you think they were going to ask? WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission. They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League. It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.

Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers (not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance). For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers. The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers. Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom. Nor was it customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​

The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:

To self determination without external interference.

To independence and sovereignty.

To territorial integrity.​

As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

(COMMENT)

The concepts of "independence" and "sovereignty" --- with "self-determination without external interference" and "territorial integrity" are man-made rights : ((Not inherent and not inalienable.))

• Under Chapter I, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter; "independence" and "sovereignty" --- and they have limitations.
• While Article 2 of the Charter mentions "self-determination" and "territorial integrity" --- first stem from the Theory of Westphalian Sovereignty (TWPS)(1648) and is a principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs. This would include the basic principle of non intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state. The
​

Whether we talk about the Emperors of the Roman Empire 100 BC, the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, or the Monarchies and Imperial Systems of the 17th thru 19th Centuries, OR today --- you will not find any consistent agreement between political entities, cultural societies, or religious regimes that have the same concept in Human Right.

TO YOUR QUESTION: How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

Your argument that somehow these imaginary rights you are attempting to apply at various decision points along the timeline, simply are not real. You cannot build your case that the Allied Powers did this or that in violation of this or that when the "rights" did not exist at that time. The TWPS applied just as equally to the Jewish People as it might have for the Arab Palestinian. As much as you would like to believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian had some superior claim, special anointed right (inherent, inalienable, or otherwise), or other moral, legal or ethical argument ... the fact is, the customary law for thousands of years has to have settled these territorial disputes in a trail by combat; the victor wins all. Even today, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), which made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; has been using terrorism, insurgencies and jihad to win by force that which they could not achieve through diplomacy. Both HAMAS and the PLO declared a Jihad and now the HoAP use every opportunity to fraudulently instigate or incite a conflict and then frivolously charge before the international community that they are being trounced in a manner that is unfair. This is all one and the same package.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinian Christians and Muslims, as the inhabitants of Palestine, had the legal right, as enunciated by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

All your shucking and jiving, all your childish name calling e.g. "Hostile Arab Palestinian" does not change the fact that you are full of shit and don't know what you are talking about.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Inhabitant means inhabitant you clown. Someone living outside of Palestine was not an inhabitant of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Relative to the focus of the thread question: Article 22 does not have a being on the "creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate"

P F Tinmore, et al,

You pro-Palestinians bake these rights like they are cookies. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (non-binding) does not list either "inherent" or "inalienable" rights. All it says is that:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
​

Everything else is "man-made" and subject to religious, political and cultural interpretations. Sharia is different than Western Law. Justice is different in Muslim States than it is in Western States. Fair punishments are differnet in Western Law than Sharia.

The only "inherent" right is outline in International Law is found in Article 51, UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
​

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so naive, that it is sad.

You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​

First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. Nobody has the authority to change that.

The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..

(COMMENT)

Basic Rule of the World: You are not rewarded for loosing!

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)

ARTICLE 16.

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 recognised 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 neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority. BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that. If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves. Just who do you think they were going to ask? WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission. They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League. It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.

Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers (not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance). For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers. The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers. Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom. Nor was it customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​

The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:

To self determination without external interference.

To independence and sovereignty.

To territorial integrity.​

As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

(COMMENT)

The concepts of "independence" and "sovereignty" --- with "self-determination without external interference" and "territorial integrity" are man-made rights : ((Not inherent and not inalienable.))

• Under Chapter I, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter; "independence" and "sovereignty" --- and they have limitations.
• While Article 2 of the Charter mentions "self-determination" and "territorial integrity" --- first stem from the Theory of Westphalian Sovereignty (TWPS)(1648) and is a principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs. This would include the basic principle of non intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state. The
​

Whether we talk about the Emperors of the Roman Empire 100 BC, the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, or the Monarchies and Imperial Systems of the 17th thru 19th Centuries, OR today --- you will not find any consistent agreement between political entities, cultural societies, or religious regimes that have the same concept in Human Right.

TO YOUR QUESTION: How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

Your argument that somehow these imaginary rights you are attempting to apply at various decision points along the timeline, simply are not real. You cannot build your case that the Allied Powers did this or that in violation of this or that when the "rights" did not exist at that time. The TWPS applied just as equally to the Jewish People as it might have for the Arab Palestinian. As much as you would like to believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian had some superior claim, special anointed right (inherent, inalienable, or otherwise), or other moral, legal or ethical argument ... the fact is, the customary law for thousands of years has to have settled these territorial disputes in a trail by combat; the victor wins all. Even today, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), which made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; has been using terrorism, insurgencies and jihad to win by force that which they could not achieve through diplomacy. Both HAMAS and the PLO declared a Jihad and now the HoAP use every opportunity to fraudulently instigate or incite a conflict and then frivolously charge before the international community that they are being trounced in a manner that is unfair. This is all one and the same package.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinian Christians and Muslims, as the inhabitants of Palestine, had the legal right, as enunciated by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

All your shucking and jiving, all your childish name calling e.g. "Hostile Arab Palestinian" does not change the fact that you are full of shit and don't know what you are talking about.

(COMMENT)

It was not even in effect in 1948.

You are trying to suggest that Article 22 was a Mandate (something that must be obeyed). It was not. The Mandate (the Allied Powers in agreement) was the Mandate (the official commission to the British Mandatory to carry-out policy and objectives).

• Entrust to a British Mandatory the administration of the territory of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, the Balfour Declaration...


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Relative to the focus of the thread question: Article 22 does not have a being on the "creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate"

P F Tinmore, et al,

You pro-Palestinians bake these rights like they are cookies. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (non-binding) does not list either "inherent" or "inalienable" rights. All it says is that:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
​

Everything else is "man-made" and subject to religious, political and cultural interpretations. Sharia is different than Western Law. Justice is different in Muslim States than it is in Western States. Fair punishments are differnet in Western Law than Sharia.

The only "inherent" right is outline in International Law is found in Article 51, UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
​

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so naive, that it is sad.

You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​

First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. Nobody has the authority to change that.

The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..

(COMMENT)

Basic Rule of the World: You are not rewarded for loosing!

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)

ARTICLE 16.

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 recognised 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 neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority. BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that. If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves. Just who do you think they were going to ask? WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission. They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League. It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.

Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers (not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance). For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers. The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers. Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom. Nor was it customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​

The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:

To self determination without external interference.

To independence and sovereignty.

To territorial integrity.​

As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

(COMMENT)

The concepts of "independence" and "sovereignty" --- with "self-determination without external interference" and "territorial integrity" are man-made rights : ((Not inherent and not inalienable.))

• Under Chapter I, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter; "independence" and "sovereignty" --- and they have limitations.
• While Article 2 of the Charter mentions "self-determination" and "territorial integrity" --- first stem from the Theory of Westphalian Sovereignty (TWPS)(1648) and is a principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs. This would include the basic principle of non intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state. The
​

Whether we talk about the Emperors of the Roman Empire 100 BC, the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, or the Monarchies and Imperial Systems of the 17th thru 19th Centuries, OR today --- you will not find any consistent agreement between political entities, cultural societies, or religious regimes that have the same concept in Human Right.

TO YOUR QUESTION: How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

Your argument that somehow these imaginary rights you are attempting to apply at various decision points along the timeline, simply are not real. You cannot build your case that the Allied Powers did this or that in violation of this or that when the "rights" did not exist at that time. The TWPS applied just as equally to the Jewish People as it might have for the Arab Palestinian. As much as you would like to believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian had some superior claim, special anointed right (inherent, inalienable, or otherwise), or other moral, legal or ethical argument ... the fact is, the customary law for thousands of years has to have settled these territorial disputes in a trail by combat; the victor wins all. Even today, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), which made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; has been using terrorism, insurgencies and jihad to win by force that which they could not achieve through diplomacy. Both HAMAS and the PLO declared a Jihad and now the HoAP use every opportunity to fraudulently instigate or incite a conflict and then frivolously charge before the international community that they are being trounced in a manner that is unfair. This is all one and the same package.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinian Christians and Muslims, as the inhabitants of Palestine, had the legal right, as enunciated by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

All your shucking and jiving, all your childish name calling e.g. "Hostile Arab Palestinian" does not change the fact that you are full of shit and don't know what you are talking about.

(COMMENT)

It was not even in effect in 1948.

You are trying to suggest that Article 22 was a Mandate (something that must be obeyed). It was not. The Mandate (the Allied Powers in agreement) was the Mandate (the official commission to the British Mandatory to carry-out policy and objectives).

• Entrust to a British Mandatory the administration of the territory of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, the Balfour Declaration...


Most Respectfully,
R

Of course Article 22 was something that must be obeyed, or it would not have been included in the Covenant, you clown. The Balfour Declaration was abrogated by Article 20 as it was incompatible with Article 22.

"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post!

Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?

Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?

 

[montelatici]

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post!

Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?

Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?

Indigenous was not a term used in the Covenant or the Mandate. The legal term was "inhabitant" and that is very easy to define. An inhabitant of Europe, for example, is not an inhabitant of a location on another continent.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post!

Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?

Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?

Indigenous was not a term used in the Covenant or the Mandate. The legal term was "inhabitant" and that is very easy to define. An inhabitant of Europe, for example, is not an inhabitant of a location on another continent.

But if an inhabitent of Europe moves to Kenya then he becomes an inhabitent of his new country.

 

[montelatici]

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post!

Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?

Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?

Indigenous was not a term used in the Covenant or the Mandate. The legal term was "inhabitant" and that is very easy to define. An inhabitant of Europe, for example, is not an inhabitant of a location on another continent.

But if an inhabitent of Europe moves to Kenya then he becomes an inhabitent of his new country.

Yes he/she does. But at the time of writing, the inhabitants were overwhelmingly Christians and Muslims. Transferring non-inhabitants to colonize the territory was, as the inhabitants declared in many official communications to the Colonial Office, contrary to protecting the "well-being and development" of they, the inhabitants, as required in Article 22. Which, of course, proved to be true.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

 

[Shusha]

Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?

Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?

Two points:

1. There is a difference between national rights (sovereignty) and individual rights. ie. We would agree, I hope, that while a Vietnamese resident should enjoy individual rights in her country of residence, this does not confer Vietnamese sovereignty in the territory of her residence.

2. Indigenous is not arbitrary. It has a specific definition, and that definition is not bounded by time or the passage of years. But by features such as a distinguishable culture, continuity, pre-invasion, etc. (see other thread).

 

[montelatici]

Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?

Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?

Two points:

1. There is a difference between national rights (sovereignty) and individual rights. ie. We would agree, I hope, that while a Vietnamese resident should enjoy individual rights in her country of residence, this does not confer Vietnamese sovereignty in the territory of her residence.

2. Indigenous is not arbitrary. It has a specific definition, and that definition is not bounded by time or the passage of years. But by features such as a distinguishable culture, continuity, pre-invasion, etc. (see other thread).

The definition you provided is bullshit. In any case Europeans are not indigenous to Palestine whatever religion.

 

[Shusha]

The definition you provided is bullshit.

Really? The UN working definition of indigenous is bullshit now?