Read it again rat boy and see that the government was a mandatory until such a time as the people could form a nation and sh0ow self determination. It was not a state until 1948 when the Jews declared independence
The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
- Thread starter Coyote
- Start date
- Status
Read it again rat boy and see that the government was a mandatory until such a time as the people could form a nation and sh0ow self determination. It was not a state until 1948 when the Jews declared independence
You have failed to show when this state came into existence and who was its head of government. Without either it could not be a state.
Every single link given shows that Palestine was never a state, and all you have is a paper by an islamonazi propagandist that uses false data as the only evidence to support his claims. Every single treaty he uses is manipulated and altered to meet with his personal POV, and you ride in on his back.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,170
- 4,673
- 1,815
There are multiple UN resolutions stating the the Palestinians have the right to self determination.
Could you post some stating the same things for the Jews?
Lets just say the UN has spoken on this matter and found you to be in error.
No it does not mean it was a non self governing territory, as it was governed by the mandatory. Which was Britain until may14, and then the UN from may15. In 1949 the UN accepted Israel as the government of the land.
The door was left open for both parties to take advantage, and as usual the Palestinians missed the bus and have still not shown free determination or the ability to stand on their own feet.
Correct the MANDATE which was in place at the time. Spelt out in the LoN treaties and mandate documents. Something I have tried to educate you on these past 4 years but you ignore the truth because it means that you are wrong
No as it was never the UN's land.
AND NOW YOU ARE JUST BEING SILLY BECAUSE THE PENNY FINALLY DROPPED. The LoN owned the land and made it into one of many mandates, the mandatories of those mandates did not own the land. International law of 1923 states that the land known as Jewish Palestine was to be granted as the Jewish NATIONal home. This means that the Jews took up their birthright in 1948 and took control of their land. The only stealing was done by Jordan and Egypt when they stole the land the UN tried to palm of on the Palestinians.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
This is an interesting question.
• Mandates and Trusteeship at the turn into the 20th Century, different than States and Protectorates.
Mandates (like the Mandate for Palestine) had governments as usually assigned by the Allied Powers. What make the Mandate for Palestine, out of the several British Mandate and Protectorates (9 in the Arab Realm). I say that with the reservation that not all Mandates are the same as the Post Great War Mandates. The current UN Mandate for Iraq is a very different Mandate from that of the post-WWI era.
To ANSWER the first Question:
• In the case of the territory of Palestine, the 1922-1948 Mandate: non-self governing only meant that the Government of Palestine was not that established by the inhabitants. And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples." During the period 1922 and 1923 the High Commissioner attempted to entice participation.
• THUS: It was not that they Arab Palestinians were prevented from self-governance, but rather, the declined to take such steps as preparatory for self-governance and Independence.
to ANSWER the second Question:
• The language of "immediate" depends on the Arab Palestinian participation in Article 22 Criteria. In fact, they actually did use language that would suggest Independence and Sovereignty at some point in the future. ALL the territory situated outside the frontiers of Turkey were, at some point, to be granted independence. But as Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne points out, "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Allied Powers held the Title and Rights to these territories and would decide on the partitioning; and Arab and Jews gradually receiving greater and greater levels of autonomy until total self-governance is achieved. And in early 1948, the Arab Higher Committee --- AGAIN --- rejected to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."
The Arab Palestinians seldom, if ever, accept the consequences of their actions. In this case, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate --- THEREFORE they have no real cause for complaint.
Most Respectfully,
R
This is an interesting question.
(COMMENT)
• Mandates and Trusteeship at the turn into the 20th Century, different than States and Protectorates.
Mandates (like the Mandate for Palestine) had governments as usually assigned by the Allied Powers. What make the Mandate for Palestine, out of the several British Mandate and Protectorates (9 in the Arab Realm). I say that with the reservation that not all Mandates are the same as the Post Great War Mandates. The current UN Mandate for Iraq is a very different Mandate from that of the post-WWI era.
To ANSWER the first Question:
• In the case of the territory of Palestine, the 1922-1948 Mandate: non-self governing only meant that the Government of Palestine was not that established by the inhabitants. And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples." During the period 1922 and 1923 the High Commissioner attempted to entice participation.
• THUS: It was not that they Arab Palestinians were prevented from self-governance, but rather, the declined to take such steps as preparatory for self-governance and Independence.
• The language of "immediate" depends on the Arab Palestinian participation in Article 22 Criteria. In fact, they actually did use language that would suggest Independence and Sovereignty at some point in the future. ALL the territory situated outside the frontiers of Turkey were, at some point, to be granted independence. But as Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne points out, "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Allied Powers held the Title and Rights to these territories and would decide on the partitioning; and Arab and Jews gradually receiving greater and greater levels of autonomy until total self-governance is achieved. And in early 1948, the Arab Higher Committee --- AGAIN --- rejected to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."
Most Respectfully,
R
Why as it is a right of everyone, and as you know UN resolutions are not international law but recommendations.
UNPO: Self-determination
The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
So when will the Palestinians exercise this right and take control of their own lives, instead of making false claims that they are refused this right. Who refuses them this right, and how is it refused. You need to look up what it means before making any more stupid claims.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,170
- 4,673
- 1,815
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,170
- 4,673
- 1,815
And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples."
Load of crap, Rocco. The Palestinians were blocked at every turn for self governance.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Not quite.
You have to examine the entire timeline. The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.
• The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.
The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.
• In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
• In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.
Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.
Most Respectfully,
R
Not quite.
(COMMENT)
You have to examine the entire timeline. The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.
• The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.
The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.
• In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
• In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.
Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.
Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, this is an undefined term.
I think this is a red herring approach to derail the discussion.
• See The meaning of indigenous peoples.
I attach this every time. If it does not included so facet or fraction of people, please let me know.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, this is an undefined term.
(COMMENT)
I think this is a red herring approach to derail the discussion.
• See The meaning of indigenous peoples.
I attach this every time. If it does not included so facet or fraction of people, please let me know.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,170
- 4,673
- 1,815
Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.
Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
This is another side-line.
It is either a Planet-wide human right encompassing all people, or it is not a "Human Right." And if it doesn't encompass the very people that were included in the Balfour Declaration, and all the linage of material thereafter, then it is irrelevant.
I suggest you make an argument as to why self-determination,
• The observer for the State of Palestine responded by declaring: “The right to self-determination belongs to all, and doesn’t come after negotiations.”
The Palestinians have exercised there "right to self-determination" several times.
Most Respectfully,
R
This is another side-line.
(COMMENT)
It is either a Planet-wide human right encompassing all people, or it is not a "Human Right." And if it doesn't encompass the very people that were included in the Balfour Declaration, and all the linage of material thereafter, then it is irrelevant.
I suggest you make an argument as to why self-determination,
• The observer for the State of Palestine responded by declaring: “The right to self-determination belongs to all, and doesn’t come after negotiations.”
The Palestinians have exercised there "right to self-determination" several times.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,170
- 4,673
- 1,815
How does that relate to the discussion at hand?
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation. It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation. What matters is who exercises sovereign control. The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy. Don't fool yourself. The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders. And if that is not clear, the read the treaties. The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
(COMMENT)
Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation. It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation. What matters is who exercises sovereign control. The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy. Don't fool yourself. The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders. And if that is not clear, the read the treaties. The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
You asked for the meaning of "peoples."
I gave you the UN FACT SHEET that discusses "peoples."
Your argument is probably going to challenge on the fact sheet is focused on "INDIGENOUS PEOPLES" and not just the (stand-alone) "peoples" of the Charter.
If you want to split hairs, than go right ahead.
Most Respectfully,
R
You asked for the meaning of "peoples."
(COMMENT)
I gave you the UN FACT SHEET that discusses "peoples."
Your argument is probably going to challenge on the fact sheet is focused on "INDIGENOUS PEOPLES" and not just the (stand-alone) "peoples" of the Charter.
If you want to split hairs, than go right ahead.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,170
- 4,673
- 1,815
You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,170
- 4,673
- 1,815
Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL"...
Misleading. The agreements were Egyptian-Israeli, etc.. A place called Israel was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, that is your opinion.
SOVEREIGNTY
In the context of Rights and Duties of States, the Restatement of the Law Third states:
"'Sovereignty' is a term used in many senses and is much abused. As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory generally to the exclusion of other states, authority to govern in that territory, and authority to apply law there."
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, that is your opinion.
(COMMENT)
SOVEREIGNTY
In the context of Rights and Duties of States, the Restatement of the Law Third states:
"'Sovereignty' is a term used in many senses and is much abused. As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory generally to the exclusion of other states, authority to govern in that territory, and authority to apply law there."
Most Respectfully,
R
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Democrtas Send SWAT Teams. Republicans Tweet. Trump Tweets Accusation That Hillary Killed JFK Jr.- Started by munkle
- Replies: 2
-
Now we have reached political parity but do we deserve it- Started by Etymology gaslight
- Replies: 11
-
Footage disproves repeating claims of Gaza starvation as war ramps up. (PallyWeid)
- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 7
-
Turning into a good night for normal people in European elections- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 13
