Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Phoenall]

Who are the Palestinians?

Haya Ayoub

Trying to slime the Jews again with your islamonazi propaganda and LIES

What slime and lies? She seemed like a level headed young woman.

NO YOU as that is all you are doing dragging up islamonazu LIES and BLOOD LIBELS to slime the Jews.


Now about this map of palestine from 1917 that shows the international borders again, and not the map of the borders of the Jewish portion of palestine you usually drag up......................

 

[Phoenall]

OK, but the expulsion of the Palestinians is recorded history.

The expulsion of the Jewish people is also recorded history.

Anyone who can trace their ancestry there has the right to return.

Trace their ancestry how?

The British, the UN, and others have records of Palestinian citizenship.

Actually they dont as none were kept of illegal immigrants, just those that are resident in Israel who were legal.

The only litmus test is their DNA that can show how many generations they have lived in the area

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For the hundredth time, your understanding of this is wrong. But in every good piece of Hostile Arab Palestinian Propaganda, there are slight pieces of "truth." That is what makes it sound so good.

Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation that was not implemented by the Security Council. There was no legal requirement to comply.

All during the mandate period the Palestinians pushed for their right to self determination and independence. There is nothing illegal about that.

(COMMENT)

First, --- you are correct. A/RES/181(II) was a "Recommendation" and a "Non-binding" Resolution.

BUT!

• It was not implemented in the same sense by the Security Council because it was not a "Binding Resolution."
• The Implementation was overseen by the Security Council through the eyes of the United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC); which reported to the Security Council.
• The UNPC did make it clear in its last sentence of Clause #5 PAL/169: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 was implemented."

View attachment 95705
UNPC PAL/169 17 MAY 1948​

• You are correct, the recommendation was in the form of an "Offer Extended by the UN and a voluntary Acceptance by either of the clients under the Mandate;" and which the Arab Palestinians declined (not unexpected - following their established pattern of belligerent uncooperativeness); and the Jewish Agency accepting the offer and recommendations.
• With the exception of the obstructiveness applied by the Arab League, and the initiation of hostilities as the aggressor --- crossing their internationally recognized frontiers, the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government attempted to comply with the Steps Preparatory to Independence as recommended in A/RES/181 (II) --- and as overseen by the UNPC and the International Community.
• Intervention by the Arab League use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the newly established State of Israel [(Declarative Form ••• Self-Determination)(as recommended by the UN Resolution)] prevented further development towards the objectives of A/RES/181(II).
• The combat outcome of the 1948 War opened by the unsanctioned intervention of Arab League Forces attempting to attain that which they were unsuccessful in achieving though peace means, was not favorable to the Arab League. While the Egyptians were successful in taking by force territory (Gaza Strip) formally under the Mandate for Palestine --- and --- the Jordanians were successful in taking by force the territory (West Bank) formally under the Mandate for Palestine, other areas were lost to Israel after the Israeli Defense Force pursued retreating Arab Forces.
​

Given the unproductive, unhelpful, recalcitrant attitude of the Arab Palestinians --- and the general unwillingness to achieve anything even close to the intentions of the Allied Powers to establish a safe and secure national home for the Jewish people, it was not difficult to conclude that the opening of hostilities was the preferred solution to the dispute. The UNPC had already detected Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, that were defying and attempting to subvert the recommendations contained in the UN Resolution of 29 November 1947; an obvious and deliberate effort to alter the peaceful outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

The native Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unhelpful, recalcitrant and unwilling to help facilitate the takeover and repopulation of lands their ancestors had lived on for centuries by Europeans needing a National Home. Who would have thought!

Well it did not stop them when it came to foriegn muslims coming in and taking their lands for other foriegn muslims to rule over and claim as theirs did it. Unfortunately international laws of that time worked against them and they ended up nearly losing everything in the process.
BUT YOU DONT WANT ANY LAWS OR TREATIES TO WORK IN THE JEWS FAVOUR BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION SEES THEM AS THE MURDERER OF GOD

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For the hundredth time, your understanding of this is wrong. But in every good piece of Hostile Arab Palestinian Propaganda, there are slight pieces of "truth." That is what makes it sound so good.

Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation that was not implemented by the Security Council. There was no legal requirement to comply.

All during the mandate period the Palestinians pushed for their right to self determination and independence. There is nothing illegal about that.

(COMMENT)

First, --- you are correct. A/RES/181(II) was a "Recommendation" and a "Non-binding" Resolution.

BUT!

• It was not implemented in the same sense by the Security Council because it was not a "Binding Resolution."
• The Implementation was overseen by the Security Council through the eyes of the United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC); which reported to the Security Council.
• The UNPC did make it clear in its last sentence of Clause #5 PAL/169: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 was implemented."

View attachment 95705
UNPC PAL/169 17 MAY 1948​

• You are correct, the recommendation was in the form of an "Offer Extended by the UN and a voluntary Acceptance by either of the clients under the Mandate;" and which the Arab Palestinians declined (not unexpected - following their established pattern of belligerent uncooperativeness); and the Jewish Agency accepting the offer and recommendations.
• With the exception of the obstructiveness applied by the Arab League, and the initiation of hostilities as the aggressor --- crossing their internationally recognized frontiers, the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government attempted to comply with the Steps Preparatory to Independence as recommended in A/RES/181 (II) --- and as overseen by the UNPC and the International Community.
• Intervention by the Arab League use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the newly established State of Israel [(Declarative Form ••• Self-Determination)(as recommended by the UN Resolution)] prevented further development towards the objectives of A/RES/181(II).
• The combat outcome of the 1948 War opened by the unsanctioned intervention of Arab League Forces attempting to attain that which they were unsuccessful in achieving though peace means, was not favorable to the Arab League. While the Egyptians were successful in taking by force territory (Gaza Strip) formally under the Mandate for Palestine --- and --- the Jordanians were successful in taking by force the territory (West Bank) formally under the Mandate for Palestine, other areas were lost to Israel after the Israeli Defense Force pursued retreating Arab Forces.
​

Given the unproductive, unhelpful, recalcitrant attitude of the Arab Palestinians --- and the general unwillingness to achieve anything even close to the intentions of the Allied Powers to establish a safe and secure national home for the Jewish people, it was not difficult to conclude that the opening of hostilities was the preferred solution to the dispute. The UNPC had already detected Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, that were defying and attempting to subvert the recommendations contained in the UN Resolution of 29 November 1947; an obvious and deliberate effort to alter the peaceful outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

While the Egyptians were successful in taking by force territory (Gaza Strip) formally under the Mandate for Palestine --- and --- the Jordanians were successful in taking by force the territory (West Bank) formally under the Mandate for Palestine, other areas were lost to Israel after the Israeli Defense Force pursued retreating Arab Forces.​

Indeed, but Jordan and Egypt no longer occupy any Palestinian territory. Israel does.

I thought you said palestine was stopped from ever existing by Israel ?

 

[Phoenall]

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 ?

Nice deflection. You did not refute anything in my post.

What deflection, until you provide the evidence all you are posting is LIES. You repeatedly ask for links and evidence and when you get them you ignore them and ask for them again. The map from 1922 is the one the Jews used to define the nation of Israel.
Why do you claim the arab's arrested for violent crimes and terrorism were indigenous to the area and were deported or executed illegally.
Where is the map of the arab muslim nation from 1948 or 1988, if such is so important to you.
Why do you claim everything that goes against your POV is an Israeli lie.


That is every topic in your post refuted by simple logic and reality

You called me a liar.

Prove your point.

Simple you are asked repeatedly for a link to your claim that a nation of palestine has existed since 1917 and have constantly refused to supply that link. It is not mentioned in the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of Lausanne or the mandate of palestine which are the only links you use making you a rabid LIAR.

You ask for links and get them, usually the above mentioned that you ignore or claim are LIES

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For the hundredth time, your understanding of this is wrong. But in every good piece of Hostile Arab Palestinian Propaganda, there are slight pieces of "truth." That is what makes it sound so good.

Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation that was not implemented by the Security Council. There was no legal requirement to comply.

All during the mandate period the Palestinians pushed for their right to self determination and independence. There is nothing illegal about that.

(COMMENT)

First, --- you are correct. A/RES/181(II) was a "Recommendation" and a "Non-binding" Resolution.

BUT!

• It was not implemented in the same sense by the Security Council because it was not a "Binding Resolution."
• The Implementation was overseen by the Security Council through the eyes of the United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC); which reported to the Security Council.
• The UNPC did make it clear in its last sentence of Clause #5 PAL/169: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 was implemented."

View attachment 95705
UNPC PAL/169 17 MAY 1948​

• You are correct, the recommendation was in the form of an "Offer Extended by the UN and a voluntary Acceptance by either of the clients under the Mandate;" and which the Arab Palestinians declined (not unexpected - following their established pattern of belligerent uncooperativeness); and the Jewish Agency accepting the offer and recommendations.
• With the exception of the obstructiveness applied by the Arab League, and the initiation of hostilities as the aggressor --- crossing their internationally recognized frontiers, the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government attempted to comply with the Steps Preparatory to Independence as recommended in A/RES/181 (II) --- and as overseen by the UNPC and the International Community.
• Intervention by the Arab League use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the newly established State of Israel [(Declarative Form ••• Self-Determination)(as recommended by the UN Resolution)] prevented further development towards the objectives of A/RES/181(II).
• The combat outcome of the 1948 War opened by the unsanctioned intervention of Arab League Forces attempting to attain that which they were unsuccessful in achieving though peace means, was not favorable to the Arab League. While the Egyptians were successful in taking by force territory (Gaza Strip) formally under the Mandate for Palestine --- and --- the Jordanians were successful in taking by force the territory (West Bank) formally under the Mandate for Palestine, other areas were lost to Israel after the Israeli Defense Force pursued retreating Arab Forces.
​

Given the unproductive, unhelpful, recalcitrant attitude of the Arab Palestinians --- and the general unwillingness to achieve anything even close to the intentions of the Allied Powers to establish a safe and secure national home for the Jewish people, it was not difficult to conclude that the opening of hostilities was the preferred solution to the dispute. The UNPC had already detected Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, that were defying and attempting to subvert the recommendations contained in the UN Resolution of 29 November 1947; an obvious and deliberate effort to alter the peaceful outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

• You are correct, the recommendation was in the form of an "Offer Extended by the UN and a voluntary Acceptance by either of the clients under the Mandate;" and which the Arab Palestinians declined...​

If both people accepted, there would have been a treaty. If both sides did not accept, there is nothing. There is no such thing as a one sided treaty. Some tried to push forward with parts of the resolution anyway but without authority.

You always step over the most important part. What was the core of this "offer?" It was to partition Palestine. The Palestinians were to agree to cede half of their country to the Zionist colonial project.

What other people would agree to that?

Give me some names.

The obvious error causing your befuddled stammering is your belief that these imagined Pal'istanians were living in an imagined country you call Pal'istan.

The Islamist Colonial Project was composed of Arab-Moslem squatters from foreign lands. There was no reason for the British to cede lands to Arab-Moslem squatters when they, (the British), controlled the area.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For the hundredth time, your understanding of this is wrong. But in every good piece of Hostile Arab Palestinian Propaganda, there are slight pieces of "truth." That is what makes it sound so good.

Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation that was not implemented by the Security Council. There was no legal requirement to comply.

All during the mandate period the Palestinians pushed for their right to self determination and independence. There is nothing illegal about that.

(COMMENT)

First, --- you are correct. A/RES/181(II) was a "Recommendation" and a "Non-binding" Resolution.

BUT!

• It was not implemented in the same sense by the Security Council because it was not a "Binding Resolution."
• The Implementation was overseen by the Security Council through the eyes of the United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC); which reported to the Security Council.
• The UNPC did make it clear in its last sentence of Clause #5 PAL/169: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 was implemented."

View attachment 95705
UNPC PAL/169 17 MAY 1948​

• You are correct, the recommendation was in the form of an "Offer Extended by the UN and a voluntary Acceptance by either of the clients under the Mandate;" and which the Arab Palestinians declined (not unexpected - following their established pattern of belligerent uncooperativeness); and the Jewish Agency accepting the offer and recommendations.
• With the exception of the obstructiveness applied by the Arab League, and the initiation of hostilities as the aggressor --- crossing their internationally recognized frontiers, the Jewish Agency/Provisional Government attempted to comply with the Steps Preparatory to Independence as recommended in A/RES/181 (II) --- and as overseen by the UNPC and the International Community.
• Intervention by the Arab League use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the newly established State of Israel [(Declarative Form ••• Self-Determination)(as recommended by the UN Resolution)] prevented further development towards the objectives of A/RES/181(II).
• The combat outcome of the 1948 War opened by the unsanctioned intervention of Arab League Forces attempting to attain that which they were unsuccessful in achieving though peace means, was not favorable to the Arab League. While the Egyptians were successful in taking by force territory (Gaza Strip) formally under the Mandate for Palestine --- and --- the Jordanians were successful in taking by force the territory (West Bank) formally under the Mandate for Palestine, other areas were lost to Israel after the Israeli Defense Force pursued retreating Arab Forces.
​

Given the unproductive, unhelpful, recalcitrant attitude of the Arab Palestinians --- and the general unwillingness to achieve anything even close to the intentions of the Allied Powers to establish a safe and secure national home for the Jewish people, it was not difficult to conclude that the opening of hostilities was the preferred solution to the dispute. The UNPC had already detected Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, that were defying and attempting to subvert the recommendations contained in the UN Resolution of 29 November 1947; an obvious and deliberate effort to alter the peaceful outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

• You are correct, the recommendation was in the form of an "Offer Extended by the UN and a voluntary Acceptance by either of the clients under the Mandate;" and which the Arab Palestinians declined...​

If both people accepted, there would have been a treaty. If both sides did not accept, there is nothing. There is no such thing as a one sided treaty. Some tried to push forward with parts of the resolution anyway but without authority.

You always step over the most important part. What was the core of this "offer?" It was to partition Palestine. The Palestinians were to agree to cede half of their country to the Zionist colonial project.

What other people would agree to that?

Give me some names.

How about Isreal when it gave up 78% of its original grant so that Britain could create trans Jordan. Then in 1947 they agreed to give up 23% of the remainder so that the arab muslims could have the best farm lands and control of all the Jewish holy site. All this so they could live in peace.

By the way it was to partition the mandate of palestine not the nation of palestine as you are trying to claim.

It was not a treaty as the arab muslims denied it and so lost any claim to the land in the process

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure your are understanding this just yet. Please understand what you are saying here...

Indeed, but Jordan and Egypt no longer occupy any Palestinian territory. Israel does.​

(QUESTION)

These are critical questions.

Exactly which sovereignty took control of what territory --- from what other sovereignty (in 1967)?

In August of 1988, which sovereignty abandoned what territory, leaving it in Terra Nulles and in the effective control --- solely in the hands of what other sovereignty?
​

(DEFINITIONAL)

Terra Nullius is a territory over which any prior sovereign of Jordan has publicly and expressly relinquished its sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is Terra Nullius can be acquired through occupation.​

Public international law, and more particularly the rules governing title to territory, does not recognise any territorial rights for nomadic peoples, remaining constant in its approach that only a settled state can exercise territorial sovereignty. The criterion of statehood requiring that a state have a defined territory has not yet been read as possibly including the nomadic use of such territory, and nomadic peoples must fit into the structure of a state in which the majority is settled. As there are very few places in the world that have a predominately nomadic population that could potentially claim statehood and challenge the present understanding of territorial sovereignty, 54 nomadic peoples must look beyond the rules governing title to territory to find ways that would allow them to claim rights over their traditional transient territories. Such an avenue has been developed for nomadic peoples under the banner of indigenous peoples’ rights, under which international law has started to acknowledge that cultural ties to territory could be the source of rights over territories for indigenous peoples. (Gilbert, 2007)

54 See Castellino, ‘Territory and Identity in International Law: The Struggle for Self-Determination in the Western Sahara’, (1999) 28 Journal of International Studies 523.​

Disengagement from the West Bank

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.​

(COMMENT)

The administrative severance from the1950, unanimously approved (Jordanian & Palestinian)​

Unification of the Two Banks​

divided by the Jordan River (an Annexation approved under self-determination), withdrew both the sovereignty and the protection of the West Bank. This knowingly and effectively left the West Bank to the Israelis. There was no effective Arab Palestinian government (provisional or otherwise) in either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The Egyptian Military Governorship rapidly withdrew rapidly in the face of an overwhelming superior force. (Remembering: The All Palestine Government (APG) having been dissolved in 1959 by the Egyptian Government. The APG, upon it disillusionment, had no further claim.)

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure your are understanding this just yet. Please understand what you are saying here...

Indeed, but Jordan and Egypt no longer occupy any Palestinian territory. Israel does.​

(QUESTION)

These are critical questions.
​

Exactly which sovereignty took control of what territory --- from what other sovereignty (in 1967)?

In August of 1988, which sovereignty abandoned what territory, leaving it in Terra Nulles and in the effective control --- solely in the hands of what other sovereignty?
​

(DEFINITIONAL)

Terra Nullius is a territory over which any prior sovereign of Jordan has publicly and expressly relinquished its sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is Terra Nullius can be acquired through occupation.​

Public international law, and more particularly the rules governing title to territory, does not recognise any territorial rights for nomadic peoples, remaining constant in its approach that only a settled state can exercise territorial sovereignty. The criterion of statehood requiring that a state have a defined territory has not yet been read as possibly including the nomadic use of such territory, and nomadic peoples must fit into the structure of a state in which the majority is settled. As there are very few places in the world that have a predominately nomadic population that could potentially claim statehood and challenge the present understanding of territorial sovereignty, 54 nomadic peoples must look beyond the rules governing title to territory to find ways that would allow them to claim rights over their traditional transient territories. Such an avenue has been developed for nomadic peoples under the banner of indigenous peoples’ rights, under which international law has started to acknowledge that cultural ties to territory could be the source of rights over territories for indigenous peoples. (Gilbert, 2007)

54 See Castellino, ‘Territory and Identity in International Law: The Struggle for Self-Determination in the Western Sahara’, (1999) 28 Journal of International Studies 523.​

Disengagement from the West Bank

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.​

(COMMENT)

The administrative severance from the1950, unanimously approved (Jordanian & Palestinian)
Unification of the Two Banks
divided by the Jordan River (an Annexation approved under self-determination), withdrew both the sovereignty and the protection of the West Bank. This knowingly and effectively left the West Bank to the Israelis. There was no effective Arab Palestinian government (provisional or otherwise) in either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The Egyptian Military Governorship rapidly withdrew rapidly in the face of an overwhelming superior force. (Remembering: The All Palestine Government (APG) having been dissolved in 1959 by the Egyptian Government. The APG, upon it disillusionment, had no further claim.)

Most Respectfully,
R​

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. (Must be that old government service. You people think funny like that.)

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Look it up.

 

[elektra]

Palestine, a section of Syria, not a state or a territory, a geographic part. Like the Mojave desert or the Rocky Mountains. In this case, Palestine referred to an area within Syria.

 

[montelatici]

Palestine, a section of Syria, not a state or a territory, a geographic part. Like the Mojave desert or the Rocky Mountains. In this case, Palestine referred to an area within Syria.

So what? Does that mean that it was ok to remove and dispossess the Christians and Muslims who's ancestors had lived their for centuries to make room for European Jews. Plus having been the Roman province of Palestine for several centuries, with important cities and a large population of Christians during Roman Byzantine rule, ir wasn't the Mojave desert or the Rocky mountains, you ignorant fool.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I said that. And again you don't quite understand.

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. (Must be that old government service. You people think funny like that.)​

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Look it up.

(COMMENT)

And I don't think you read the links.

Did you read? "terra nullius - territory that may be acquired by a state's occupation of it."

Or did you read? "In international law, a territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty is terra nullius. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius can be acquired through occupation."
​

Now, there are several other legal sources I could cite, and have cited in the past. But I'll just simplifiy this the best I can.

But what I can say is that these issues are not isolated concepts. There are relationships between them. You have this idea that only a single source or concept is relevant.

Sovereignty is an extension of authority. "But if sovereignty is a matter of authority, it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority."

Sovereignty is:

• the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

•In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
​

You never answered the previous questions (Post #2988), so I assume you are not aware of the answers or do not understand how they relate. "Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order." In the case of the Arab Palestinians, they cannot really be considered sovereign it they cannot exercise power and authority. And with the Possible exception of Area "A" --- and --- in a very limited respect, the Gaza Strip, the Arab Palestinians can talk all they want about "rights;" but in fact if they don't have control or authority, they simply do not have Sovereignty.

What is Sovereignty.

The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration ; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

Law Dictionary: What is SOVEREIGNTY? definition of SOVEREIGNTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
​

In the case of the West Bank, the Sovereignty was handed over to the Israelis by default when the Jordanians severed all ties. It went terra nullius (Jordan abandon sovereignty).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[elektra]

So what? Does that mean that it was ok to remove and dispossess the Christians and Muslims who's ancestors had lived their for centuries to make room for European Jews. Plus having been the Roman province of Palestine for several centuries, with important cities and a large population of Christians during Roman Byzantine rule, ir wasn't the Mojave desert or the Rocky mountains, you ignorant fool.

Technically, what I said is 100% accurate. You on the other hand would have a tough time showing that Christians and Moslems were forcibly removed. Under the Romans, Palestine was a Judea! You made the case that Palestine is of the Jews, as in Judea, for centuries, under the Romans. Thanks for helping.

 

[montelatici]

From recently declassified British intelligence reports it shows that the European Jews initiated the ethnic cleansing and the Christians and Muslims were forced to flee or be killed by the Jews. the only hope for the Christians and Muslims was a successful intervention by the Arab states, according to the British. Unfortunately, the Arab states were unable to save the Christians and Muslims from EuropeanJew aggression.


"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

"After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".


"By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

No, Palestine was Palestine under Roman rule and was Christian for centuries. There were no Jews, it was illegal to be anything but Christian once Christianity became the Roman state religion.

You really should stop reading Jewish/Zionist propaganda and read some source historical material.

 

[elektra]

From recently declassified British intelligence reports it shows that the European Jews initiated the ethnic cleansing and the Christians and Muslims were forced to flee or be killed by the Jews. the only hope for the Christians and Muslims was a successful intervention by the Arab states, according to the British. Unfortunately, the Arab states were unable to save the Christians and Muslims from EuropeanJew aggression.


"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

"After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".


"By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

No, Palestine was Palestine under Roman rule and was Christian for centuries. There were no Jews, it was illegal to be anything but Christian once Christianity became the Roman state religion.

You really should stop reading Jewish/Zionist propaganda and read some source historical material.

1. "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

There is no UK report of that time that refers to Palestinians. If so, produce it, it should be all over the internet. The fact is, that in 1948 and earlier, if someone spoke of Palestinians, it was assumed or known they were speaking of Jews. If you can not be truthful about this little bit of history then you are simply a liar. Not ignorant, for I have now, educated you .

 

[elektra]

"After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

Anybody who knows a little of the history of Israel, knows the Irgun, were not Zionists, nor were there "militant Zionists" in the Irgun. Technically, the Zionists opposed the Irgun, a completely separate group. Out of fear the Irgun would cease power.

You have zero understanding of history and simply repeat lies, propaganda.

 

[elektra]

"By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

Yes, now you have it right, Jews fought Arabs, not Palestinians. The Arab's had no morale, and fled, simply because they had a fear, which, seeings how Arabs are very superstitious and prone to believing rumor, it is easy to see how they would easily flee back to the lands where they came from on hearing the Jews were defeating the Arabs. It is written in, "The Revolt", in detail.

 

[elektra]

No, Palestine was Palestine under Roman rule and was Christian for centuries. There were no Jews, it was illegal to be anything but Christian once Christianity became the Roman state religion.

You really should stop reading Jewish/Zionist propaganda and read some source historical material.

You should learn history, I would suggest Gibbons. The Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire. Romans called Judea, just that, Judea. As far as Palestine goes, they did not call the area, simply Palestine. Again, the source is Gibbons. Not Jews/Zionists, which you seem to think is one and the same, they are not. They are separate entities.

 

[montelatici]

"By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

Yes, now you have it right, Jews fought Arabs, not Palestinians. The Arab's had no morale, and fled, simply because they had a fear, which, seeings how Arabs are very superstitious and prone to believing rumor, it is easy to see how they would easily flee back to the lands where they came from on hearing the Jews were defeating the Arabs. It is written in, "The Revolt", in detail.

The Jews were invaders from Europe, the Palestinians were the native people of Palestine. I don't see how you can be so confused. The Palestinian people, Christian and Muslim, were a people that attempted to stop the invasion through negotiation just after the British took over from the Ottomans, as confirmed in correspondence between the Palestinians and the British and the Zionists and the British. You are just parroting Zionist propaganda. The facts are in the UN archives. But, you have never done any research and have just accepted Zionist fiction. Read the source material and weep. The Christians and Muslims were the people of Palestine. The European Jews were the Zionists of the Zionist Organisation.

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:

"Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."


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)

 

[montelatici]

No, Palestine was Palestine under Roman rule and was Christian for centuries. There were no Jews, it was illegal to be anything but Christian once Christianity became the Roman state religion.

You really should stop reading Jewish/Zionist propaganda and read some source historical material.

You should learn history, I would suggest Gibbons. The Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire. Romans called Judea, just that, Judea. As far as Palestine goes, they did not call the area, simply Palestine. Again, the source is Gibbons. Not Jews/Zionists, which you seem to think is one and the same, they are not. They are separate entities.

I would suggest you read the source documentation. Once you do, you will find that after the battle of Bar Kokhba in 134 AD the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the province Palaestina.