Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Phoenall]

What is it called when people from one place go to another place, on another continent in this case, take over the land and expel and/or subjugate the native inhabitants?

If an indigenous people were expelled from their place of origin it is called a "return", or in the words of the legal documentation: the reconstitution of their National Homeland.

The people that invaded Palestine were Europeans. There was no return.

The indigenous people of Palestine are the same people that were there when the Europeans invaded. That they converted in time to Christianity and Islam did not change their indigenous status.

As there was no invasion, your frantic cutting and pasting of the same slogans and clichés serves no purpose but to waste bandwidth.

To get an answer out of you, let's fantasize that the indigenous people welcomed the arrival of the Europeans in great numbers (so now it is no longer an invasion) and for whatever reason these Europeans created a state for themselves named the state after their (and not the indigenous people's religions). expelled many of the indigenous people and we arrived at the same point we are now.

Are there any other solutions beyond those I specified? I think not.

Only that is what your islamonazi fantasy says happened, and not the reality.You are altering your fantasy more and more after being hit by the bombshell that no nation sent the Jews to palestine as colonists, so you have to invent a fictitious ruling power. Every time you come to palestine you ignore and deny the Jews still living there that had ancestral ties going back 4,400 years, you do this at your peril because when the latest research bears fruit you will be left looking stupid

 

[Phoenall]

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Of course there was an invasion, by the way. There is no other definition for what happened.

Yes by the arab muslims who saw a way to make any easy buck, a pity the Jews were prepared to fight for their survival and so killed the arab muslim invaders.


Unless you believe the truth and accept that the Ottomans and then the LoN invited the Jews to migrate and colonise the land bereft of arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

And they were given the Lions share to play with, the JEWS WERE GIVEN JUST 22% OF WHAT THEY WERE PROMISED.

What law says the arab muslims had the right to land they had never seen ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Promoting the colonization of Palestine by Europeans "molested" the opportunity of the native people to pursue autonomous development.

You mean like the native JEWISH people that outnumbered the arab muslim itinerant farm workers ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.​

More crapola from Rocco.

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity."

Oh jeese.

They had 30 years to declare their self determination to a state, and it was only after the Egyptians with the arab League formed the All palestinian government and tried to claim land already designated by the Jews as their national home. Does this mean that the US can send a letter to the UN stating that as of 1st November 2016 the lands of mecca and medina will be American sovereign lands and it will be legal ?

Now why do you think the UN ignored this letter, and told Egypt to try again

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

I agree with you. The "Palestinians" have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. And SOME of the "Palestinians" exercised that right to sovereignty -- the Jewish people. (Actually, imo, the Jewish people have MORE rights to that sovereignty, but I'm not going to quibble a hundred years later).

The question is NOT (I repeat NOT) about whether the Arab Palestinian Muslims and Christians have the "right" to a self-determinative sovereignty. They do. We all agree they do. The question is whether they self-determine they would prefer to have that sovereignty under Jordan's rule (a decision they made in 1947, which appears to have been un-made, both by them and Jordan); under Israeli rule (clearly unlikely) or under their own sovereign rule on a portion of the territory where the other "Palestinians" have ALSO declared sovereignty (as is their right as acknowledged above). There is nothing, in law, preventing two groups, two very distinct cultural groups, from EACH forming their own sovereignty within their rights (as acknowledged above). There are practical considerations which prevent that second group (STILL!) from sovereignty. Not the least of which is to learn to play in the sandbox with others.

You are posting clutter. Can you prove anything you said?

Much more than you can prove your claims to what you see as reality. As in the letter sent 5 months after the BRitish handed the mandate to the UN and the Jews had declared the land Israel

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

Is this too difficult for you to follow?

Prove what? There is nothing in my post which requires "proof". That there are two distinct groups in "Palestine"? Self-evident. The one of them has exercised their right to sovereignty? Self-evident. That there is nothing in law which prevents a State from forming two States based on the self-determination of two distinct cultural groups? One can't prove a negative. If you think you have some sort of proof to negate my claim -- present it.

Not true. Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed the declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants. Where were the "Palestinian Jews?" These were all foreigners.

WRONG Israel was created by the Jews that were legal citizens of palestine under current international laws. They were all in Palestine the day the declaration was made.

The arab muslims were not cohesive and were split into 8 factions each wanting its own slice of the cake, and the Egyptians got there first and tried to steal Jewish lands by legal subterfuge.

Your smokescreen is dispersed as soon as you deploy it because the Zionists were legally accepted as being the spokesman for the Jews, the A.P.G. had refused to take part and so were not accepted as being legal.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, and not a single one of the Arab Palestinians took advantage of the opportunity to "develop on their own."

Promoting the colonization of Palestine by Europeans "molested" the opportunity of the native people to pursue autonomous development.

(COMMENT)

We've talked about "development" before. The Arab Palestinians don't even try. And every time the issue is raised, they try and blame the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course they tried, the British disregarded all their attempts at nation building. The British never allowed the Christians and Muslims to pursue autonomous development. It started in 1922 where in correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation in London the British Foreign Office stated:

"Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine"

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

This policy never changed.

And what was the reasons given then monte, or is that what destroys your stance again.



Here are the reasons


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.

4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.




Want to comment on the facts and reality that show as far back as 1922 the British knew how vile and evil the arab muslims were.

 

[Phoenall]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

Why do you say that?

For the same reason you are European, as that is your homeland

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Are you arguing with history again, do you like being shown up as a LIAR

Jordan Formally Annexes the West Bank | History Today


Richard Cavendish describes the events leading up to Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, on April 24th, 1950.

On April 24, 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a Resolution making the West Bank and Jerusalem part of Jordan. This act had no basis in international law; it was only the de facto act of Trans-Jordan as a conquerer.The other Arab countries denied formal recognition of the Jordanian move and only two governments – Great Britain and Pakistan – formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did.

Jordan Annexed West Bank after 1948 War

Jordan’s Illegal Annexation
In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”

While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal.

1948-1967: Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."[16] The annexation formed part of Jordan’s "Greater Syria Plan" expansionist policy,[17] and in response, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria joined Egypt in demanding Jordan’s expulsion from the Arab League.[18][19] A motion to expel Jordan from the League was prevented by the dissenting votes of Yemen and Iraq.[20] On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.​

More crapola from Rocco.

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity."

Oh jeese.

They had 30 years to declare their self determination to a state, and it was only after the Egyptians with the arab League formed the All palestinian government and tried to claim land already designated by the Jews as their national home. Does this mean that the US can send a letter to the UN stating that as of 1st November 2016 the lands of mecca and medina will be American sovereign lands and it will be legal ?

Now why do you think the UN ignored this letter, and told Egypt to try again

Not true. Every Palestinian who made a move to self determination was arrested, exiled, or killed by the British.

The Palestinians only claimed land inside their own international borders. What part of Israel would be inside Palestine's international borders? That the Palestinians claimed land already designated by the Jews is just an Israeli lie. Show me a 1948 map of Israel or a document defining its borders and where the Palestinian declaration encroaches on that territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore

Is this too difficult for you to follow?

Prove what? There is nothing in my post which requires "proof". That there are two distinct groups in "Palestine"? Self-evident. The one of them has exercised their right to sovereignty? Self-evident. That there is nothing in law which prevents a State from forming two States based on the self-determination of two distinct cultural groups? One can't prove a negative. If you think you have some sort of proof to negate my claim -- present it.

Not true. Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed the declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants. Where were the "Palestinian Jews?" These were all foreigners.

WRONG Israel was created by the Jews that were legal citizens of palestine under current international laws. They were all in Palestine the day the declaration was made.

The arab muslims were not cohesive and were split into 8 factions each wanting its own slice of the cake, and the Egyptians got there first and tried to steal Jewish lands by legal subterfuge.

Your smokescreen is dispersed as soon as you deploy it because the Zionists were legally accepted as being the spokesman for the Jews, the A.P.G. had refused to take part and so were not accepted as being legal.

the A.P.G. had refused to take part and so were not accepted as being legal.​

Refused to take part in what?

The formation of the APG and its declaration of independence was 100% legal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

Why do you say that?

She wasn't born in Palestine. She has never even visited.

Forced exile does not change your nationality.

 

[Phoenall]

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Are you arguing with history again, do you like being shown up as a LIAR

Jordan Formally Annexes the West Bank | History Today


Richard Cavendish describes the events leading up to Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, on April 24th, 1950.

On April 24, 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a Resolution making the West Bank and Jerusalem part of Jordan. This act had no basis in international law; it was only the de facto act of Trans-Jordan as a conquerer.The other Arab countries denied formal recognition of the Jordanian move and only two governments – Great Britain and Pakistan – formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did.

Jordan Annexed West Bank after 1948 War

Jordan’s Illegal Annexation
In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”

While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal.

1948-1967: Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."[16] The annexation formed part of Jordan’s "Greater Syria Plan" expansionist policy,[17] and in response, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria joined Egypt in demanding Jordan’s expulsion from the Arab League.[18][19] A motion to expel Jordan from the League was prevented by the dissenting votes of Yemen and Iraq.[20] On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia

So now you admit that the west bank was annexed by Jordan, talk about a U turn

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

Is this too difficult for you to follow?

Prove what? There is nothing in my post which requires "proof". That there are two distinct groups in "Palestine"? Self-evident. The one of them has exercised their right to sovereignty? Self-evident. That there is nothing in law which prevents a State from forming two States based on the self-determination of two distinct cultural groups? One can't prove a negative. If you think you have some sort of proof to negate my claim -- present it.

Not true. Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed the declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants. Where were the "Palestinian Jews?" These were all foreigners.

WRONG Israel was created by the Jews that were legal citizens of palestine under current international laws. They were all in Palestine the day the declaration was made.

The arab muslims were not cohesive and were split into 8 factions each wanting its own slice of the cake, and the Egyptians got there first and tried to steal Jewish lands by legal subterfuge.

Your smokescreen is dispersed as soon as you deploy it because the Zionists were legally accepted as being the spokesman for the Jews, the A.P.G. had refused to take part and so were not accepted as being legal.

the A.P.G. had refused to take part and so were not accepted as being legal.​

Refused to take part in what?

The formation of the APG and its declaration of independence was 100% legal.

The UN partition plan for starters. And it goes all the way back to 1917 when they refused as a body to be involved with any of the details of the mandate. So they lost everything they could have had

 

[Phoenall]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

Why do you say that?

She wasn't born in Palestine. She has never even visited.

Forced exile does not change your nationality.

Correct and it still makes the Jews of the world Israeli's doesnt it and gives them a better claim to the lands than the illegal arab muslim migrants

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

As tou say My "post is so incoherent I don't know where to start."

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

(QUESTION)

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you might want to reassess the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws.

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke screen. You can either answer the questions or you can't. The answers will point directly to the status of the West Bank at the time of the alleged theft from the Arab Palestinians.

What country relinquished all ties and withdrew all claims to the West Bank on 31 July 1988?
What Arab activity of any description, maintained sovereign control over the West Bank on 1 Aug 1988?
​

The Palestinians have had the right to sovereignty since the Treaty of Lausanne. That they have had an occupation gun in their face since their inception preventing them from exercising that right does not negate that right.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne really does not address any global right --- either of sovereignty or self-determination. As has been said several times, Article 16 places the title and rights of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers. NOT in the hand of the indigenous population. This is further covered under Article 27:

ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
​

Now, in the 14 Points under President Wilson's post-War Peace, it is important to remember that, Point #12, directly applicable to the Middle East, is limited in scope:

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
​

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity." Self-determination was simply not fully developed. In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.

Again, this is not a "smokescreen;" but, an acknowledgement of a lack of dedication and commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the post-conflict phase of the Israeli War of independence (mid-1949), self-determination was not addressed until 1988, by the Arab Palestinians.​

More crapola from Rocco.

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY

It is important to understand that self-determination was not recognized as a "right" but as a "unmolested opportunity."

Oh jeese.

They had 30 years to declare their self determination to a state, and it was only after the Egyptians with the arab League formed the All palestinian government and tried to claim land already designated by the Jews as their national home. Does this mean that the US can send a letter to the UN stating that as of 1st November 2016 the lands of mecca and medina will be American sovereign lands and it will be legal ?

Now why do you think the UN ignored this letter, and told Egypt to try again

Not true. Every Palestinian who made a move to self determination was arrested, exiled, or killed by the British.

The Palestinians only claimed land inside their own international borders. What part of Israel would be inside Palestine's international borders? That the Palestinians claimed land already designated by the Jews is just an Israeli lie. Show me a 1948 map of Israel or a document defining its borders and where the Palestinian declaration encroaches on that territory.

LIAR if that was true you would have posted the links. What you mean is every arab muslim illegal migrant that resorted to violence, acts of war and terrorism were arrested. The same happened to the Jews

What international borders as none existed and still dont, your one and only link actually states the borders are those of the mandate of palestine.

I have given you the 1922 definitive delination of the LoN grant for the Jewish national home, others have given you the partition plan map. Where is your map of the nation of palestine from 1917 then that you have been asked for and refuse to produce, or even 1948 or 1988 ?

 

[Shusha]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

Why do you say that?

She wasn't born in Palestine. She has never even visited.

Forced exile does not change your nationality.

Thank you. I'll remember you said that.

 

[montelatici]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

Why do you say that?

She wasn't born in Palestine. She has never even visited.

Forced exile does not change your nationality.

Thank you. I'll remember you said that.

With the caveat that changing religion doesn't change nationality.

 

[Phoenall]

She's not Palestinian -- she's European.

Why do you say that?

She wasn't born in Palestine. She has never even visited.

Forced exile does not change your nationality.

Thank you. I'll remember you said that.

With the caveat that changing religion doesn't change nationality.

And that taking people as slaves to another land does not remove their nationality or culture. So when they get the chance to return they should not find morons and idiots telling them they have no rights