Who Are The Palestinians?

[montelatici]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

 

[toastman]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

Only the looney brained will say that what the 5 Arab states did to Israel in 1948 wasn't an attack

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have seen this complaint before. The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities (like the UNPC) for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.

REMEBER:

The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​

Not at all. You posted many things that they wanted to do. There was nothing about what was done.

That was my question that you are dodging.

(COMMENT)

There were (YES!) many things that the successor government (the UNPC) wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion (external influences). Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve. The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing. The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:

You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "wanted to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging "what was done."

The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee. A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948​

Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community. The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence. And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian (playing the roll of perpetual victim) sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.

Most Respectfully,
R

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​

That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.

The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.

The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.

It had not been their country since 1099, so they did not have the right to murder innocent people.

The British had nothing to do with it as it was the LoN that set up the Mandate for Palestine.

The solution is for the UN to impose International law and evict all the violent, belligerent, aggressive islamonazi terrorists and implement the Mandate for Palestine.

What International law would that be then ?

 

[Phoenall]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost. Dar al Harb is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.

 

[MJB12741]

The attempt at preventing the massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims that were left behind in the area illegally given to Europeans, was not an attack. It was a regional coalition that was attempting to prevent a crime against humanity.

LOL! Them poppies must be good this year.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

With respect to General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 --- it is a non-binding recommendation. And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done! As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.

Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.” Decolonization

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have seen this complaint before. The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities (like the UNPC) for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.

REMEBER:

The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​

Not at all. You posted many things that they wanted to do. There was nothing about what was done.

That was my question that you are dodging.

(COMMENT)

There were (YES!) many things that the successor government (the UNPC) wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion (external influences). Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve. The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing. The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:

You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "wanted to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging "what was done."

The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee. A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948​

Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community. The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence. And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian (playing the roll of perpetual victim) sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.

Most Respectfully,
R

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​

That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.

The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.

The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.

(QUESTION)

Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"

(COMMENT)

Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law. In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."

1. International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization
   famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
   "The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.

View attachment 39036
​

A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required. The Special Committee on Decolonization (Committee of 24 or C-24), and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations. However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​

Evidently not.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand.

And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​

Evidently not.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what you are contesting...

• Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under "decolonization?"
• Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect. That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
• Are you challenging the fact that "decolonization" is not covered over International or Customary Law?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

With respect to General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 --- it is a non-binding recommendation. And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done! As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.

Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.” Decolonization

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have seen this complaint before. The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities (like the UNPC) for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.

REMEBER:

The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​

Not at all. You posted many things that they wanted to do. There was nothing about what was done.

That was my question that you are dodging.

(COMMENT)

There were (YES!) many things that the successor government (the UNPC) wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion (external influences). Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve. The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing. The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:

You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "wanted to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging "what was done."

The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee. A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948​

Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community. The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence. And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian (playing the roll of perpetual victim) sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.

Most Respectfully,
R

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​

That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.

The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.

The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.

(QUESTION)

Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"

(COMMENT)

Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law. In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."

1. International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization
   famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
   "The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.

View attachment 39036
​

A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required. The Special Committee on Decolonization (Committee of 24 or C-24), and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations. However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Wasn't Palestine a non self governing, trust territory under UNSCOP after the British Mandate left in 1948?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand.

And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​

Evidently not.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what you are contesting...

• Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. ?"
• Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect. That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
• Are you challenging the fact that About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. is not covered over International or Customary Law?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand.

And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​

Evidently not.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what you are contesting...

• Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under "decolonization?"
• Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect. That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
• Are you challenging the fact that "decolonization" is not covered over International or Customary Law?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.

 

[montelatici]

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality. Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".

And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost. Dar al Harb is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.

But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims. What do European Jews have to do with it?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UNSCOP dissolved after the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II). The Resolution created the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) as the successor goverment to the Mandatory over Palestine.

Wasn't Palestine a non self governing, trust territory under UNSCOP after the British Mandate left in 1948?

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between a Mandate/Trusteeship, an Occupation and a Colonial Settlement. In fact, the Mandate and Trusteeships actually prohibit Colonization outside the guidance of the League of Nations/UN. The has been no Allied Power that has establish and maintained a colony in the Middle East.

Israel, a partition of the territory to which the Mandate once applied, became a self-governing institution in 1948. The remained of the territory still fell under the Resolution as an unapportioned Non-governing --- having had an offer of self-government rejected by the Arab Palestinians (the was a negative form of self-determination). In 1988, the UN acknowledged the Declaration of Independence by the PLO, creating the State of Palestine over the territory remaining after the armistice (Gaza Strip and West Bank). Thus, there has not been any territory in the region of the former Mandate for Palestine that has not been allocated.

As you can see from the link to C-24 --- the committee does not consider

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony. We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.

Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). See the C-24 Table:

​

I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore: The right to self determination without external interference.

R: The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​

P F Tinmore: The right to independence and sovereignty.

R: The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​

P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.

R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​

P F Tinmore: I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

R: The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​

• • Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
  • Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
  • Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory." It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition. Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously. It is one of the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony. We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.

Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). See the C-24 Table:

View attachment 39078
​

I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore: The right to self determination without external interference.

R: The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​

P F Tinmore: The right to independence and sovereignty.

R: The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​

P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.

R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​

P F Tinmore: I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

R: The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​

• • Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
  • Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
  • Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory." It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition. Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously. It is one of the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.
R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​

I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Fatin Jarara

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony. We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.

Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). See the C-24 Table:

View attachment 39078
​

I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore: The right to self determination without external interference.

R: The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​

P F Tinmore: The right to independence and sovereignty.

R: The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​

P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.

R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​

P F Tinmore: I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

R: The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​

• • Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
  • Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
  • Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory." It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition. Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously. It is one of the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

You must be joking.

P F Tinmore: The right to self determination without external interference.
R: The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​

Palestine was born under occupation and that has continued through today.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony. We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.

Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). See the C-24 Table:

View attachment 39078
​

I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore: The right to self determination without external interference.

R: The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​

P F Tinmore: The right to independence and sovereignty.

R: The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​

P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.

R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​

P F Tinmore: I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

R: The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​

• • Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
  • Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
  • Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory." It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition. Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously. It is one of the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

"Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory." It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition. Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously. It is one of the other."

Well, people from Europe (facilitated by a colonial power) went to another continent, settled the land evicted (or killed) a large part of the local people and declared the land their own. How is that not colonialism?





















"

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Territory and borders --- these are key issues; subject to the permanent status of negotiations.

I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.

(COMMENT)

Actual borders are actually defined by enforcement criteria. What you call the actual line is unimportant for argumentative sake. What is understood universally is the actual perimeter of the border controls. In the case of Israel 're' Palestine, the continuous border control barriers and the enforcement of border crossing control criteria, protocols and requirements define where the boundary is.

Your consideration is noted, and if all things were ideal and equal, your "I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders" might mean something. As it is --- it is merely an academic thought. The physical checkpoint crossing or the physical barrier is the reality of what is enforced and recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Territory and borders --- these are key issues; subject to the permanent status of negotiations.

I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.

(COMMENT)

Actual borders are actually defined by enforcement criteria. What you call the actual line is unimportant for argumentative sake. What is understood universally is the actual perimeter of the border controls. In the case of Israel 're' Palestine, the continuous border control barriers and the enforcement of border crossing control criteria, protocols and requirements define where the boundary is.

Your consideration is noted, and if all things were ideal and equal, your "I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders" might mean something. As it is --- it is merely an academic thought. The physical checkpoint crossing or the physical barrier is the reality of what is enforced and recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders are defined by treaties as Palestine's were.

They can only be changed be a treaty with Palestine.

Control is a defining factor of occupation.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

With respect to General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 --- it is a non-binding recommendation. And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done! As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.

Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.” Decolonization

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have seen this complaint before. The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities (like the UNPC) for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.

REMEBER:

The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​

Not at all. You posted many things that they wanted to do. There was nothing about what was done.

That was my question that you are dodging.

(COMMENT)

There were (YES!) many things that the successor government (the UNPC) wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion (external influences). Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve. The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing. The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:

You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "wanted to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging "what was done."

The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee. A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948​

Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community. The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence. And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian (playing the roll of perpetual victim) sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.

Most Respectfully,
R

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​

That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.

The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.

The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.

(QUESTION)

Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"

(COMMENT)

Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law. In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."

1. International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization
   famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
   "The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.

View attachment 39036
​

A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required. The Special Committee on Decolonization (Committee of 24 or C-24), and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations. However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​

Evidently not.

YES so did not and do not apply to Israel

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

With respect to General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 --- it is a non-binding recommendation. And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done! As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.

Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.” Decolonization

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have seen this complaint before. The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities (like the UNPC) for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.

REMEBER:

The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​

Not at all. You posted many things that they wanted to do. There was nothing about what was done.

That was my question that you are dodging.

(COMMENT)

There were (YES!) many things that the successor government (the UNPC) wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion (external influences). Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve. The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing. The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:

You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "wanted to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging "what was done."

The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee. A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948​

Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community. The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence. And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian (playing the roll of perpetual victim) sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.

Most Respectfully,
R

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​

That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.

The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.

The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.

(QUESTION)

Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"

(COMMENT)

Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law. In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."

1. International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization
   famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
   "The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.

View attachment 39036
​

A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required. The Special Committee on Decolonization (Committee of 24 or C-24), and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations. However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Wasn't Palestine a non self governing, trust territory under UNSCOP after the British Mandate left in 1948?

NOPE it was annexed by Jordan with the consent of the inhabitants, this meant they were no longer refugees but citizens of Jordan. They shit in their own nest and ended up being relieved of Jordanian citizenship and self determination.