Because it was put forward by foreigners from other nations when they realised they were losing the war. Unless of course you want to tell the Jordanians that their state is not legitimate for the self same reasons
Who Are The Palestinians?
- Thread starter MJB12741
- Start date
- Status
Because it was put forward by foreigners from other nations when they realised they were losing the war. Unless of course you want to tell the Jordanians that their state is not legitimate for the self same reasons
Simply because they were not foreigners but Palestinian citizens under International law. And don't forget that it was the arab muslims that declared civil war in 1929.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
These people are nothing but terrorist sympathizers.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,424
- 4,883
- 1,815
That is not true. The immigration policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest. This was a violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
See:
Who Are The Palestinians Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
- Thread starter
- #2,525
Talk about funny. Tinmore says "It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force." So tell us how all the Muslim countries were established whereby the indigenious populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
Again you try to use 2015 laws in a 1920 situation, why not go back 2000 years and impose the same laws on the Romans giving Israel back to the Jews.
Now how was it a violation of their inalieanable right to self determination when they allowed an illegal outside influence to decide their fate for them. On top of which the LoN had already given them their homelands in Syria, Iraq and Jordan.
As for free determination aren't you trying to violate the Jews rights by making false claims about the laws extant at the time.
And how the arab muslims hoped to acquire the land of Israel to use as another islamonazi cess pit.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
I don't think the Geneva Conventions were in place at the time.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Wow, this is one hell of a set of allegations.
The correspondence between the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies sets the time frame to 1922 (over 90 years ago).
NOTE: In Paragraph #2, of Letter #2, from the Secretary of State (SoS) to the Palestinian Arab Delegation (PAD), the status of the PAD is questioned.
(COMMENT)
The Arab Palestinians of Palestine declined to formally establish a "Arab Agency" which the Mandatory could recognize as an authentic representative of the Palestinian Arab Population, and consultant to the Mandatory on matters pertaining to "immigration."
There was a belief of the Arab Palestinians that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination, and their fear that the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH) would mean an increase in Jewish immigration that would inevitably lead to subjugation through economic and political increase in pressure by the Jews. The Jaffa Riots (May 1921) where due, in no small measure to the proliferation of this belief; and the implementation of immigration policy as stipulated by Articles 4 and 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.
The Allied Powers, in Article 2 of the Mandate --- ordered the Mandatory to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the JNH, and the development of self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
Wow, this is one hell of a set of allegations.
- Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine;
- At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;
- Violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
(REFERENCE)
The correspondence between the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies sets the time frame to 1922 (over 90 years ago).
NOTE: In Paragraph #2, of Letter #2, from the Secretary of State (SoS) to the Palestinian Arab Delegation (PAD), the status of the PAD is questioned.
The SoS is not "in a position to negotiate officially with you [meaning the PAD] 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."
ANCILLARY NOTE (The Political History of Palestine under British Administration) : Paragraph 22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
ANCILLARY NOTE (The Political History of Palestine under British Administration) : Paragraph 22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
(COMMENT)
The Arab Palestinians of Palestine declined to formally establish a "Arab Agency" which the Mandatory could recognize as an authentic representative of the Palestinian Arab Population, and consultant to the Mandatory on matters pertaining to "immigration."
Allegation #1: Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine; this is lacking the understanding that the Mandatory, on at least three (3) occasions, attempted to induce the PADs to form an Arab Agency that would be a consultant on matters such as immigration. However, the Arab Palestinian Leadership declined. Thus immigration policy was established without the benefit of PAD input.
There was a belief of the Arab Palestinians that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination, and their fear that the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH) would mean an increase in Jewish immigration that would inevitably lead to subjugation through economic and political increase in pressure by the Jews. The Jaffa Riots (May 1921) where due, in no small measure to the proliferation of this belief; and the implementation of immigration policy as stipulated by Articles 4 and 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.
Allegation #2: At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest; The Allied Powers stipulated that the Mandatory should be in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people. Far from being at the point of a gun, the Mandatory proceeded IAW the directives given, absent advise from a recognizes Arab Palestinian authority.
The Allied Powers, in Article 2 of the Mandate --- ordered the Mandatory to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the JNH, and the development of self-governing institutions.
Allegation #3: Violation of their inalienable right to self determination... Whether one uses the Charter (Articles 1, 2, or 55); or the 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), or --- the 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) (See Posting #2467), it is imperative that all understand that the "right of self-determination" was never withheld or denied the Arab Palestinian. "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.... " (Hurst Hannum, Professor of International Law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, writing for the Princeton Encyclopedia). But ignore the principle of action is exactly what the PAD did by declining to establish an Arab Agency. In effect, the PAD did exercise the right to self determination by refusing to participate (negative action and zero participation).
The "principle" of self-determination is mentioned only twice in the Charter of the United Nations, both times in the context of developing "friendly relations among nations" and in conjunction with the principle of "equal rights... of peoples." The reference to "peoples" clearly encompasses groups beyond states and includes at least non-self-governing territories "whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government."
It is mort important to understand that if a people(s) decline to participate in the developmental stages of self-governing institutions, as in the case of the Palestinian Arab Delegation or the Arab Higher Committee, then they forfeit the right to complain about the outcome. The "principle" of self-determination is mentioned only twice in the Charter of the United Nations, both times in the context of developing "friendly relations among nations" and in conjunction with the principle of "equal rights... of peoples." The reference to "peoples" clearly encompasses groups beyond states and includes at least non-self-governing territories "whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government."
Most Respectfully,
R
ChrisL
Diamond Member
You know, I don't think he even reads your posts. If he did, he would have seen that the post immediately following the one he linked to negates the claims (which was a post from you BTW
) These people obviously have an agenda. Something is not right with them.First Geneva convention was in 1945 I believe, so anything before that date was covered by other international treaties. That is why your trick of trying to apply 2015 laws to a 1920 situation is a paper exercise and has no possibility of ever coming to fruition.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Phoenall, et al,
Very Close.
Treaty database : full texts, commentaries and State Parties
R
Very Close.
Treaty database : full texts, commentaries and State Parties
- First Geneva Convention, 1949
- Second Geneva Convention, 1949
- Third Geneva Convention, 1949
- Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949
- Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
- Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
- Protocol III additional to the Geneva Conventions, 2005
R
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
(b) The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.
(c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: "The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
"In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
- See more at: 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
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
To claim that the alien settlement of Palestine by European Jews was not forced upon the Christians and Muslims by the point of a gun, is ludicrous.
RoccoR
Gold Member
montelatici, et al,
Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy. Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] 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." The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate. There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians. The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate. In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
Most Respectfully,
R
Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy. Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] 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." The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate. There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians. The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
(COMMENT)
The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate. In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
- Lebanon: Independence: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
- Syria: Independence: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
- Jordan: Independence: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
- Iraq: Independence: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
- Israel: Independence: 14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
- Kuwait: Independence: 19 June 1961 (from UK)
- Egypt: Independence: 28 February 1922 (from UK)
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate. It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application. While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence. And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.
Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them. That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly. The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative. Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye. The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,424
- 4,883
- 1,815
Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands. If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a "favored" European people. I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
That is completely false. All of the aggression was started by the Arabs, like I have proved countless times.
What really happened is that the Jews had their shit together and were able to legally declare independence. When this happened, the 'Palestinians' tried to follow by doing the same a few months after, but they failed at that.
Too little too late.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,424
- 4,883
- 1,815
Bullshit!
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
The Jews were European colonists that had a colonial power helping them create a new colony. Of course they had the advantage.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
Trump Says His Administration Has Their Eye on Iranian Sleeper Cells....- Started by candycorn
- Replies: 1
-
Zone1 In what ways is antisemitism “cloaked” as being against “just” Israel?
- Started by Lisa558
- Replies: 4
-
I'm not sure where to put this. woman is obviously operating on jungle instincts.- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 1
