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

[P F Tinmore]

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

You lose again through stupid pig headedness

If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,

They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.

 

[Shusha]

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

Who were they in trust for? And what was the purpose of that trust? The establishment of a national homeland for the Jewish people.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does not work that way.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

You lose again through stupid pig headedness

If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,

They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Remember, the Title and Rights passed directly to the Allied Powers and not the inhabitants.
Remember the the control of the territories rested with the Allied Powers.

The inhabitants have no claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does not work that way.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

You lose again through stupid pig headedness

If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,

They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Remember, the Title and Rights passed directly to the Allied Powers and not the inhabitants.
Remember the the control of the territories rested with the Allied Powers.

The inhabitants have no claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not according to the LoN.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

Where does it say otherwise?

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does not work that way.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

You lose again through stupid pig headedness

If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,

They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Remember, the Title and Rights passed directly to the Allied Powers and not the inhabitants.
Remember the the control of the territories rested with the Allied Powers.

The inhabitants have no claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not according to the LoN.

(COMMENT)

If it was as you say, then the Allied Powers would have made it so. But as it stands, other than the 1988 Declaration by the PLO, the Palestinians have nothing. They opted to fight a war and did not succeed.

The Palestinians never negotiated a peace, and argue that they want territory handed to them on a silver platter. Realistically, that is not going to happen.

You can make as many arguments as you want, but the fact of the matter is that Israel has what it has; and what the Palestinians have is shaky at best.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Rocco is a believer in "manifest destiny". He believes that superior cultures (read European) have the right to displace cultures that are, in his opinion, inferior. He then misrepresents legal concepts to justify the dispossession of land, civil and social rights from those he feels are inferior as legal and just. He has actually coined a term for the natives who resist the European colonization as "hostiles", not ever considering that it is those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles. It is that basic fact that makes anything that he writes, nonsense.

 

[Shusha]

... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...

1. An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate. Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?

2. The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare. Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?

Perhaps you are not. But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?

 

[teddyearp]

The world was a much different place at the end of WWI than it is now. Cultures didn't matter. All that mattered then was who won the war, and to the winner went the spoils (land).

 

[P F Tinmore]

... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...

1. An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate. Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?

2. The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare. Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?

Perhaps you are not. But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?

When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.

In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, let's get back to the topic at hand and dispense with the ad hominem approach.

Rocco is a believer in "manifest destiny". He believes that superior cultures (read European) have the right to displace cultures that are, in his opinion, inferior. He then misrepresents legal concepts to justify the dispossession of land, civil and social rights from those he feels are inferior as legal and just. He has actually coined a term for the natives who resist the European colonization as "hostiles", not ever considering that it is those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles. It is that basic fact that makes anything that he writes, nonsense.

(COMMENT)

There are five general type of Acquisition of Sovereign Territory.

Cession: When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease.
​

In the case of the Mandate: The Mandate was assigned by the League of Nations, with the Treaty, the title and rights were transferred to the Allied Powers.

Dispossession if a issue pertaining to privately owner territories. You cannot be Dispossessed of a sovereignty you never had. What you are talking about is a civil matter pertaining to property rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.

In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.

Israel did not come into being by military conquest. It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did. Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself. And is still the only one who has to conceptually defend itself as well as physically defend itself.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.

In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.

Israel did not come into being by military conquest. It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did. Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself. And is still the only one who has to conceptually defend itself as well as physically defend itself.

Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.

I can't buy into that concept.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who is the colonial power?

When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.

In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.

Israel did not come into being by military conquest. It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did. Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself. And is still the only one who has to conceptually defend itself as well as physically defend itself.

Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.

I can't buy into that concept.

(COMMENT)

Are you kidding me?

Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors. There is no "LAW" (get that --- a Law) that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens. In fact it is just the exact opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who is the colonial power?

When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.

In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.

Israel did not come into being by military conquest. It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did. Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself. And is still the only one who has to conceptually defend itself as well as physically defend itself.

Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.

I can't buy into that concept.

(COMMENT)

Are you kidding me?

Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors. There is no "LAW" (get that --- a Law) that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens. In fact it is just the exact opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.

 

[Shusha]

So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.

There are no colonizers and there are no foreigners in this discussion. That is the concept which is faulty.

The Jewish people are indigenous people. The Jewish people have had a continuous presence on the land for 4000 years. The Jewish people lost their sovereignty and their homeland due to ethnic cleansing by a belligerent enemy. The Jewish people, by right of their historical sovereignty and their continued and ancient presence, are reconstituting their national homeland.

The only way to get around this -- the only way to deny this -- is to believe that ethnic cleansing is a valid and legal way to remove sovereignty from an indigenous people.

 

[montelatici]

So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.

There are no colonizers and there are no foreigners in this discussion. That is the concept which is faulty.

The Jewish people are indigenous people. The Jewish people have had a continuous presence on the land for 4000 years. The Jewish people lost their sovereignty and their homeland due to ethnic cleansing by a belligerent enemy. The Jewish people, by right of their historical sovereignty and their continued and ancient presence, are reconstituting their national homeland.

The only way to get around this -- the only way to deny this -- is to believe that ethnic cleansing is a valid and legal way to remove sovereignty from an indigenous people.

How can Europeans be indigenous to Palestine? The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine regardless of the religion they adopted through the centuries. Non-Christians could not have had a continuous presence. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, non-Christians converted from the Roman and other religions. Non-Christians, including Jews only returned to the area with the Muslim conquest.

 

[montelatici]

And of course the Europeans were colonizers, they claimed to be such themselves in print as early as 1899.

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin

AND AGAIN IN 1926 WITH A PLAN TO EXTEND COLONIZATION BEYOND PALESTINE.

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ
July 25, 1926
Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing ServicesShare on emailShare on print



London (Jul. 23)

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The various phases of the present situation in Palestine and in the Zionist movement throughout the world, and plans of Zionist leadership for the immediate future, were submitted for consideration at the Zionist Actions Committee which opened its session here yesterday. The contemplated trip to the United States of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, the continuation of his efforts while in America to extend the Jewish Agency through his negotiations with the Marshall group, the possibilities of extending Jewish colonization work outside of the present Palestine frontiers, including. Transjordania and certain parts of Syria, were the main features around which the deliberations centered.

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

 

[Phoenall]

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

You lose again through stupid pig headedness

If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,

They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.

Under what treaty/guidelines/charter ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does not work that way.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

You lose again through stupid pig headedness

If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,

They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Remember, the Title and Rights passed directly to the Allied Powers and not the inhabitants.
Remember the the control of the territories rested with the Allied Powers.

The inhabitants have no claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not according to the LoN.

LINK saying that the land passed directly to the arab muslims that fought on the side of the Ottomans against the British ?

 

[Phoenall]

Rocco is a believer in "manifest destiny". He believes that superior cultures (read European) have the right to displace cultures that are, in his opinion, inferior. He then misrepresents legal concepts to justify the dispossession of land, civil and social rights from those he feels are inferior as legal and just. He has actually coined a term for the natives who resist the European colonization as "hostiles", not ever considering that it is those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles. It is that basic fact that makes anything that he writes, nonsense.