What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no false premise.

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

I quoted you the exact Article "verbatim." What article are you referring to?


Most Respectfully,
R

Article 16 does not mention who received the territories.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to remember that the treaty was not written to cover the once single place (Palestine) that was so small, it is not mentioned by name in the treaty.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

You are looking at Article 30 in the Section for "nationality." The concern in Article 30 is that the Nationality of any new state covers the people living within that territory.

The territory, we now call the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (a new state) must extend the habitual residents citizenship of the Kingdom - the new state - and the people become nationals of Jordan.

This is not about territory. Section I of the Treaty covers the "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."
Section II covers "NATIONALITY." Don't confuse the two.

In my example (Hasemite Kingdom of Jordan) there is a Treaty of 1946. In that treaty it says:

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows: -

ARTICLE 1.

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At that point, anyone living as a resident in that territory which the Mandatory carved-out for Jordan, is now a citizen (not of Palestine) of Jordan. That is what Article 30 is all about.

Do you get it?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Article 30 does not say what you think it says.

1. It does not create a new state.
2. It does not transfer any territory to any state, let alone a new one.

All Article 30 says is that Turkish subjects in the territories which were transferred (to Italy, for example, in Article 15) will cease to be Turkish citizens and become citizens of the new territorial sovereign (Italy, for example).

It doesn't say that.

But thanks for playing.

OMG. Again, the cognitive disconnect is astonishing. That is EXACTLY what it says.

There is nothing in Article 30 which creates any new states nor transfers territory to any new states. You are unbelievable. It's like arguing that Article 30 transferred territory to the State of Rivendell and the State of Lothlorien. And Oz.

Made even more ridiculous by your claim that Article 30 transferred territory to Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Rivendell, Lothlorien, and Oz even though none of those non-existent states are mentioned (you know, because they didn't exist). But territory could not POSSIBLY have transferred to Israel. Because ... shrug ... "Israel isn't mentioned".

You just get more and more ridiculous.

You think like a Zionist.

Logically and intelligently.

 

[Shusha]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no false premise.

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

I quoted you the exact Article "verbatim." What article are you referring to?


Most Respectfully,
R

Article 16 does not mention who received the territories.

Yes. We know.

So where does you magical treaty mention who received the territories abandoned by Turkey?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh for heaven's sake.

Article 16 does not mention who received the territories.

(REFERENCE)

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.

(COMMENT)

Here they are talking about the "Parties to the Treaty." There are two elements representing the "parties to the Treaty:"

◈ The Group of Countries that represent the Allied Powers.
◈ The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.​

In Article 16, it specifies that "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title" so that mean it leaves the future to the "parties concerned."

It is the way things are.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to remember that the treaty was not written to cover the once single place (Palestine) that was so small, it is not mentioned by name in the treaty.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

(COMMENT)

You are looking at Article 30 in the Section for "nationality." The concern in Article 30 is that the Nationality of any new state covers the people living within that territory.

The territory, we now call the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (a new state) must extend the habitual residents citizenship of the Kingdom - the new state - and the people become nationals of Jordan.

This is not about territory. Section I of the Treaty covers the "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."
Section II covers "NATIONALITY." Don't confuse the two.

In my example (Hasemite Kingdom of Jordan) there is a Treaty of 1946. In that treaty it says:

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows: -

ARTICLE 1.

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At that point, anyone living as a resident in that territory which the Mandatory carved-out for Jordan, is now a citizen (not of Palestine) of Jordan. That is what Article 30 is all about.

Do you get it?


Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
You are trying to pretzel this into what you want to believe.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Article 30 does not say what you think it says.

1. It does not create a new state.
2. It does not transfer any territory to any state, let alone a new one.

All Article 30 says is that Turkish subjects in the territories which were transferred (to Italy, for example, in Article 15) will cease to be Turkish citizens and become citizens of the new territorial sovereign (Italy, for example).

It doesn't say that.

But thanks for playing.

OMG. Again, the cognitive disconnect is astonishing. That is EXACTLY what it says.

There is nothing in Article 30 which creates any new states nor transfers territory to any new states. You are unbelievable. It's like arguing that Article 30 transferred territory to the State of Rivendell and the State of Lothlorien. And Oz.

Made even more ridiculous by your claim that Article 30 transferred territory to Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Rivendell, Lothlorien, and Oz even though none of those non-existent states are mentioned (you know, because they didn't exist). But territory could not POSSIBLY have transferred to Israel. Because ... shrug ... "Israel isn't mentioned".

You just get more and more ridiculous.

Actually, some of these states ARE mentioned in the Treaty, namely Syria and Iraq (as well as Egypt, Cyprus and Libya), which makes the non-mention of Palestine even more pronounced. Palestine, Transjordan and Lebanon had not even been formed yet, obviously. They were not established states or territories, it seems.

Besides which, any sports teams from Palestine (the geographic territory, not any independent state) from the early 1900's usually consisted of Jewish players. Jews were always associated with the geographic area known as Palestine. In the 1960's and 70's, the hoodlums in my old neighborhood of Bensonhurst in Brooklyn, would taunt my parents and say, "Go back to Palestine!"

 

[JoeB131]

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

I'm not sure why you keep changing fonts, but never mind. A just solution from the Palestinian perspective would be for the Zionists to all go back to Europe where they came from. The notion that the issue is one of personal property (People with money coming in by force, forcing an impoverished people off their land and giving them only a fraction of what it was worth, if anything) is obscene on it's face.

The Zionist Entity is a colonial, apartheid state. If they allowed "one person, one vote" the Arab majority would vote to end Israel and then ask the Zionists to kindly go back to where they came from.

Now, yes, a moderate position is we give you SOME land and let you have your own state, but even then the Zionists are trying to take advantage. A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

 

[Hollie]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to remember that the treaty was not written to cover the once single place (Palestine) that was so small, it is not mentioned by name in the treaty.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

(COMMENT)

You are looking at Article 30 in the Section for "nationality." The concern in Article 30 is that the Nationality of any new state covers the people living within that territory.

The territory, we now call the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (a new state) must extend the habitual residents citizenship of the Kingdom - the new state - and the people become nationals of Jordan.

This is not about territory. Section I of the Treaty covers the "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."
Section II covers "NATIONALITY." Don't confuse the two.

In my example (Hasemite Kingdom of Jordan) there is a Treaty of 1946. In that treaty it says:

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows: -

ARTICLE 1.

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At that point, anyone living as a resident in that territory which the Mandatory carved-out for Jordan, is now a citizen (not of Palestine) of Jordan. That is what Article 30 is all about.

Do you get it?


Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to pretzel this into what you want to believe.

Indeed, you just don’t get it.

 

[Shusha]

You are trying to pretzel this into what you want to believe.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Shusha]

Now, yes, a moderate position is we give you SOME land and let you have your own state, but even then the Zionists are trying to take advantage. A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

A two-state solution with territory for both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people which addresses Israel's security and Palestnians prosperity is the just solution. This obsession with the 1949 Armistice Lines as the ONLY possible territorial boundaries is silly.

 

[toomuchtime_]

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

I'm not sure why you keep changing fonts, but never mind. A just solution from the Palestinian perspective would be for the Zionists to all go back to Europe where they came from. The notion that the issue is one of personal property (People with money coming in by force, forcing an impoverished people off their land and giving them only a fraction of what it was worth, if anything) is obscene on it's face.

The Zionist Entity is a colonial, apartheid state. If they allowed "one person, one vote" the Arab majority would vote to end Israel and then ask the Zionists to kindly go back to where they came from.

Now, yes, a moderate position is we give you SOME land and let you have your own state, but even then the Zionists are trying to take advantage. A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

A two state solution was offered to Arafat and again to Abbas, but Arafat responded with the second intifada and Abbas never responded at all. Time's up, the world has moved on.

Basing the proposed Arab state on the 1949 ceasefire line was nothing but arbitrary and now negotiations, if they ever happen again, will not be based on everything the Arabs want to achieve but will start with the conditions on the ground, which are area A, probably all or nearly all of area B and perhaps a small part of area C. Trump's plan would give them half of area C if they can credibly offer peace to Israel within four years. If they reject it, they get nothing.

 

[toastman]

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

I'm not sure why you keep changing fonts, but never mind. A just solution from the Palestinian perspective would be for the Zionists to all go back to Europe where they came from. The notion that the issue is one of personal property (People with money coming in by force, forcing an impoverished people off their land and giving them only a fraction of what it was worth, if anything) is obscene on it's face.

The Zionist Entity is a colonial, apartheid state. If they allowed "one person, one vote" the Arab majority would vote to end Israel and then ask the Zionists to kindly go back to where they came from.

Now, yes, a moderate position is we give you SOME land and let you have your own state, but even then the Zionists are trying to take advantage. A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

I know you have little to no knowledge on Israel, but even someone as misinformed as you should no that Israel is FAR from being an apartheid state.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

Yeah, There are a few points you need to consider.

The Zionist Entity is a colonial, apartheid state. If they allowed "one person, one vote" the Arab majority would vote to end Israel and then ask the Zionists to kindly go back to where they came from.

(COMMENT)

First Point

While it is correct to say that the US Still has what are considered "colonial holdings" or "Non-Self-Governing-Territories" (NSGTs), it is NOT CORRECT to call Israel a colonial anything. And Israel has no NSGTs under its control. In fact, there are NO NSGTs anywhere in the Middle East. This myth persists because people do not understand what NSGTs are (definede) and what it means to implement the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries.

◈ In accordance with GA resolution 1654 (XVI), the C-24 was mandated to (i) examine the application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (GA resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, hereafter referred to as the "Declaration") and (ii) to make suggestions and recommendations on the progress and extent of the implementation of the Declaration. The C-24 commenced its work in 1962.


◈ The C-24 annually reviews the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories to which the Declaration is applicable. It also hears statements from representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territories at its annual sessions, dispatches visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories and annually organizes regional seminars.​

The current table of NSGT (all of them) can be found on the C-24 Web Site Map. The importanct of this Web Site is that it show what NSGTs are under what Administrative Power. AGAIN, note that:

◈ The UN does not consider any territory in the Middle East to be a NSGT.

◈ The UN does not consider Israel an Administrative Power in control of a NSGT and subject to Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries. (See GA Resolution 1514 (XV) and GA Resolution 1514 (XVI)​

There might be any number of states that could be considered to be an Apartheid State, but Israel is not one of them. In fact, Israel is more diversified in both culture and races that any country in the Middle East. Most people perpetuate this fallacy because they do not understand the Legal Definition under International Law.

◈ • Article 7(2h) Crimes Against Humanity - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court •

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; ​

As you can see, it is about one race dominating another race. The fact is, a person can be of any race and be Jewish. Even the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, two-thirds of which borders China, has a strong oriental influence, while there are a number of Jewish communities all throughout Sub-Saharan Africa (ie Black Jews). And of course you are aware that, in Israel, there are only 15.9% Europe/America/Oceania-born compared with 20.9% Arab born population.

The Arab Palestinians want to make the Apartheid issue about religious beliefs. Well the UN Human Rights Commission holds that the International standards on freedom of religion or belief have a strong foundation:

◈ The primary sources of law underpinning the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief are article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. ​

The people of Israel not only have the right of self-determination, but they have the right to religious freedoms under International Law.

Now, yes, a moderate position is we give you SOME land and let you have your own state, but even then the Zionists are trying to take advantage. A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

(COMMENT)

Who says that that is reasonable. And the (so called) 1967 borders were based on the 1949 Armistice Agreements which basically said the Armistice lines are no longer in force on the agreement of a Peace Treaty. Well that has happened.

A little tid-bit here. The Israelis never occupied any territory that was in the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians. The West Bank and Jerusalem were under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control.

A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

(COMMENT)

Well, I suspect that "might" be true. But the fact of the matter is, the Israeli (not Jewish, not Zionists) Government has never been give the opportunity to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. This would include the restitution and reparations to account for the damage, destruction and mobilization cost for Israeli to protect its borders for the Hostile Arab Palestinians.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

While it is correct to say that the US Still has what are considered "colonial holdings" or "Non-Self-Governing-Territories" (NSGTs), it is NOT CORRECT to call Israel a colonial anything.

In fact, the IDEA that the Jewish people are just some "proxy" for a some other "colonial" or "Imperialist" state is both ridiculous and a bit insulting, as though Jewish self-determination is so incomprehensible that it HAS to have arisen from some Imperialist state.

A. people. returning. to. their. homeland. is. not. Imperialist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

Yeah, There are a few points you need to consider.

The Zionist Entity is a colonial, apartheid state. If they allowed "one person, one vote" the Arab majority would vote to end Israel and then ask the Zionists to kindly go back to where they came from.

(COMMENT)

First Point

While it is correct to say that the US Still has what are considered "colonial holdings" or "Non-Self-Governing-Territories" (NSGTs), it is NOT CORRECT to call Israel a colonial anything. And Israel has no NSGTs under its control. In fact, there are NO NSGTs anywhere in the Middle East. This myth persists because people do not understand what NSGTs are (definede) and what it means to implement the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries.

◈ In accordance with GA resolution 1654 (XVI), the C-24 was mandated to (i) examine the application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (GA resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, hereafter referred to as the "Declaration") and (ii) to make suggestions and recommendations on the progress and extent of the implementation of the Declaration. The C-24 commenced its work in 1962.


◈ The C-24 annually reviews the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories to which the Declaration is applicable. It also hears statements from representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territories at its annual sessions, dispatches visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories and annually organizes regional seminars.​

The current table of NSGT (all of them) can be found on the C-24 Web Site Map. The importanct of this Web Site is that it show what NSGTs are under what Administrative Power. AGAIN, note that:

◈ The UN does not consider any territory in the Middle East to be a NSGT.

◈ The UN does not consider Israel an Administrative Power in control of a NSGT and subject to Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries. (See GA Resolution 1514 (XV) and GA Resolution 1514 (XVI)​

There might be any number of states that could be considered to be an Apartheid State, but Israel is not one of them. In fact, Israel is more diversified in both culture and races that any country in the Middle East. Most people perpetuate this fallacy because they do not understand the Legal Definition under International Law.

◈ • Article 7(2h) Crimes Against Humanity - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court •

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; ​

As you can see, it is about one race dominating another race. The fact is, a person can be of any race and be Jewish. Even the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, two-thirds of which borders China, has a strong oriental influence, while there are a number of Jewish communities all throughout Sub-Saharan Africa (ie Black Jews). And of course you are aware that, in Israel, there are only 15.9% Europe/America/Oceania-born compared with 20.9% Arab born population.

The Arab Palestinians want to make the Apartheid issue about religious beliefs. Well the UN Human Rights Commission holds that the International standards on freedom of religion or belief have a strong foundation:

◈ The primary sources of law underpinning the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief are article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. ​

The people of Israel not only have the right of self-determination, but they have the right to religious freedoms under International Law.

Now, yes, a moderate position is we give you SOME land and let you have your own state, but even then the Zionists are trying to take advantage. A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

(COMMENT)

Who says that that is reasonable. And the (so called) 1967 borders were based on the 1949 Armistice Agreements which basically said the Armistice lines are no longer in force on the agreement of a Peace Treaty. Well that has happened.

A little tid-bit here. The Israelis never occupied any territory that was in the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians. The West Bank and Jerusalem were under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control.

A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

(COMMENT)

Well, I suspect that "might" be true. But the fact of the matter is, the Israeli (not Jewish, not Zionists) Government has never been give the opportunity to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. This would include the restitution and reparations to account for the damage, destruction and mobilization cost for Israeli to protect its borders for the Hostile Arab Palestinians.


Most Respectfully,
R

◈ The UN does not consider any territory in the Middle East to be a NSGT.

Yes it does.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution - Question of Palestine

 

[rylah]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

Yeah, There are a few points you need to consider.

The Zionist Entity is a colonial, apartheid state. If they allowed "one person, one vote" the Arab majority would vote to end Israel and then ask the Zionists to kindly go back to where they came from.

(COMMENT)

First Point

While it is correct to say that the US Still has what are considered "colonial holdings" or "Non-Self-Governing-Territories" (NSGTs), it is NOT CORRECT to call Israel a colonial anything. And Israel has no NSGTs under its control. In fact, there are NO NSGTs anywhere in the Middle East. This myth persists because people do not understand what NSGTs are (definede) and what it means to implement the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries.

◈ In accordance with GA resolution 1654 (XVI), the C-24 was mandated to (i) examine the application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (GA resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, hereafter referred to as the "Declaration") and (ii) to make suggestions and recommendations on the progress and extent of the implementation of the Declaration. The C-24 commenced its work in 1962.


◈ The C-24 annually reviews the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories to which the Declaration is applicable. It also hears statements from representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territories at its annual sessions, dispatches visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories and annually organizes regional seminars.​

The current table of NSGT (all of them) can be found on the C-24 Web Site Map. The importanct of this Web Site is that it show what NSGTs are under what Administrative Power. AGAIN, note that:

◈ The UN does not consider any territory in the Middle East to be a NSGT.

◈ The UN does not consider Israel an Administrative Power in control of a NSGT and subject to Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries. (See GA Resolution 1514 (XV) and GA Resolution 1514 (XVI)​

There might be any number of states that could be considered to be an Apartheid State, but Israel is not one of them. In fact, Israel is more diversified in both culture and races that any country in the Middle East. Most people perpetuate this fallacy because they do not understand the Legal Definition under International Law.

◈ • Article 7(2h) Crimes Against Humanity - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court •

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; ​

As you can see, it is about one race dominating another race. The fact is, a person can be of any race and be Jewish. Even the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, two-thirds of which borders China, has a strong oriental influence, while there are a number of Jewish communities all throughout Sub-Saharan Africa (ie Black Jews). And of course you are aware that, in Israel, there are only 15.9% Europe/America/Oceania-born compared with 20.9% Arab born population.

The Arab Palestinians want to make the Apartheid issue about religious beliefs. Well the UN Human Rights Commission holds that the International standards on freedom of religion or belief have a strong foundation:

◈ The primary sources of law underpinning the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief are article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. ​

The people of Israel not only have the right of self-determination, but they have the right to religious freedoms under International Law.

Now, yes, a moderate position is we give you SOME land and let you have your own state, but even then the Zionists are trying to take advantage. A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

(COMMENT)

Who says that that is reasonable. And the (so called) 1967 borders were based on the 1949 Armistice Agreements which basically said the Armistice lines are no longer in force on the agreement of a Peace Treaty. Well that has happened.

A little tid-bit here. The Israelis never occupied any territory that was in the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians. The West Bank and Jerusalem were under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control.

A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

(COMMENT)

Well, I suspect that "might" be true. But the fact of the matter is, the Israeli (not Jewish, not Zionists) Government has never been give the opportunity to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. This would include the restitution and reparations to account for the damage, destruction and mobilization cost for Israeli to protect its borders for the Hostile Arab Palestinians.


Most Respectfully,
R

◈ The UN does not consider any territory in the Middle East to be a NSGT.

Yes it does.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution - Question of Palestine

There's a reason why they didn't make that a binding resolution,
because its actually illegal for the UN, that is vested with its function and bound by obligations from the League of Nations that all confirm the sovereignty of the Jewish nation in Palestine to prevent it - that is binding international law.

In General Assembly they can vote that the earth is flat,
it has no relevance to actual UN legal body.

By the way, when were Jews excluded from "Palestinians"?

 

[Mindful]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

Yeah, There are a few points you need to consider.

The Zionist Entity is a colonial, apartheid state. If they allowed "one person, one vote" the Arab majority would vote to end Israel and then ask the Zionists to kindly go back to where they came from.

(COMMENT)

First Point

While it is correct to say that the US Still has what are considered "colonial holdings" or "Non-Self-Governing-Territories" (NSGTs), it is NOT CORRECT to call Israel a colonial anything. And Israel has no NSGTs under its control. In fact, there are NO NSGTs anywhere in the Middle East. This myth persists because people do not understand what NSGTs are (definede) and what it means to implement the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries.

◈ In accordance with GA resolution 1654 (XVI), the C-24 was mandated to (i) examine the application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (GA resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, hereafter referred to as the "Declaration") and (ii) to make suggestions and recommendations on the progress and extent of the implementation of the Declaration. The C-24 commenced its work in 1962.


◈ The C-24 annually reviews the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories to which the Declaration is applicable. It also hears statements from representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territories at its annual sessions, dispatches visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories and annually organizes regional seminars.​

The current table of NSGT (all of them) can be found on the C-24 Web Site Map. The importanct of this Web Site is that it show what NSGTs are under what Administrative Power. AGAIN, note that:

◈ The UN does not consider any territory in the Middle East to be a NSGT.

◈ The UN does not consider Israel an Administrative Power in control of a NSGT and subject to Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries. (See GA Resolution 1514 (XV) and GA Resolution 1514 (XVI)​

There might be any number of states that could be considered to be an Apartheid State, but Israel is not one of them. In fact, Israel is more diversified in both culture and races that any country in the Middle East. Most people perpetuate this fallacy because they do not understand the Legal Definition under International Law.

◈ • Article 7(2h) Crimes Against Humanity - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court •

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; ​

As you can see, it is about one race dominating another race. The fact is, a person can be of any race and be Jewish. Even the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, two-thirds of which borders China, has a strong oriental influence, while there are a number of Jewish communities all throughout Sub-Saharan Africa (ie Black Jews). And of course you are aware that, in Israel, there are only 15.9% Europe/America/Oceania-born compared with 20.9% Arab born population.

The Arab Palestinians want to make the Apartheid issue about religious beliefs. Well the UN Human Rights Commission holds that the International standards on freedom of religion or belief have a strong foundation:

◈ The primary sources of law underpinning the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief are article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. ​

The people of Israel not only have the right of self-determination, but they have the right to religious freedoms under International Law.

Now, yes, a moderate position is we give you SOME land and let you have your own state, but even then the Zionists are trying to take advantage. A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

(COMMENT)

Who says that that is reasonable. And the (so called) 1967 borders were based on the 1949 Armistice Agreements which basically said the Armistice lines are no longer in force on the agreement of a Peace Treaty. Well that has happened.

A little tid-bit here. The Israelis never occupied any territory that was in the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians. The West Bank and Jerusalem were under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control.

A two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be reasonable.... but the Zionists won't even go for that.

(COMMENT)

Well, I suspect that "might" be true. But the fact of the matter is, the Israeli (not Jewish, not Zionists) Government has never been give the opportunity to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. This would include the restitution and reparations to account for the damage, destruction and mobilization cost for Israeli to protect its borders for the Hostile Arab Palestinians.


Most Respectfully,
R

◈ The UN does not consider any territory in the Middle East to be a NSGT.

Yes it does.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution - Question of Palestine

I'm getting rather fed up with your tiresome tales of fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Palestinian Jews were Jewish inhabitants of Palestine (known in Hebrew as Eretz Israel, the "Land of Israel") prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel.

The common term for the Jewish community of Ottoman Syria during the 19th century,[1] and British Palestine prior to the establishment of the State of Israel[1] is Yishuv ("settlement"). A distinction is drawn between the "New Yishuv", largely composed of and descended from immigrants after the First Aliyah in 1881, and the "Old Yishuv", the pre-existing Jewish community of Palestine prior to the First Aliyah.

In addition to applying to Jews who lived in Palestine during the British Mandate era, the term "Palestinian Jews" has also been applied to Jewish residents of Southern Syria, the southern part of the Ottoman province of Syria, and there are scholarly instances of referring to the Jews of the Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda provinces (4th to 7th centuries CE) of the Byzantine Empire in Late Antiquity as "Palestinian Jews".[citation needed]

After the establishment of Israel in 1948, the Jews of Mandatory Palestine became Israeli citizens, and the term "Palestinian Jews" has largely fallen into disuse and is somewhat defunct, in favor of the term Israeli Jews.

From Wiki.

 

[JoeB131]

A two-state solution with territory for both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people which addresses Israel's security and Palestnians prosperity is the just solution. This obsession with the 1949 Armistice Lines as the ONLY possible territorial boundaries is silly.

In short. the Jews steal all the good land, leave the Arabs with the crappy land, and call it "just".

This is what got them driven out of Europe to start with...

 

[JoeB131]

Palestinian Jews were Jewish inhabitants of Palestine (known in Hebrew as Eretz Israel, the "Land of Israel") prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel.

Yeah, big problem with that. There weren't any before the British started settling them there.

Why is it every prominent Jewish Leader in the Zionist Entity can trace his ancestry back to Europe within one or two generations?

Netanyahoo's dad came from Poland.
Benny Gantz's parents came from Romania and Hungary
Shimon Peres was born in Poland.
Moshe Dayan's parents emigrated from the Ukraine.

I can go on and on, but oddly, NONE of these people can really trace their family trees back centuries in Palestine... they are what they are, invaders.

So my plan. The Palestinians get their land back, the Zionists go back to Europe where they came from.