A few questions so I will know who I'm dealing with...

[toastman]

You ducked the other question about 'Palestinians' declaring statehood in 1988.

 

[Indofred]

(OBSERVATION)

The Jewish immigration was invited and encouraged by the Senior Arab leadership, and later, by the Allied Powers.

Not according to an old mate of mine who served as a soldier in Palestine just after the war.
According to him, British troops would often drag immigrants back onto the ships and send them packing.
That is the story as he told it so perhaps you could post evidence to prove your claim and show that old soldier's story to be a lie.

Thanks in advance.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You ducked the other question about 'Palestinians' declaring statehood in 1988.

Good question. Perhaps you should ask them.

For John Quigley, Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Actually, in 1988, the "Palestinians" issued a "declaration," not a "reaffirmation." Go an read it for yourself.

 

[toastman]

You ducked the other question about 'Palestinians' declaring statehood in 1988.

Good question. Perhaps you should ask them.

For John Quigley, Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you just said that they declared statehood in 1948 !!
So which one was it ??????
Also , from your link:

Statehood not in effect

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ok, but they didn't become a recognized state in 1948 even if they did declare independence (which I doubt since they rejected the 1947 partition plan)

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If they declared independence in 1948, then why do it again in 1988 ?

Read the first sentence of that link

The partition plan (resolution 181) is irrelevant. The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did. The Security Council could not implement it without Palestinian approval.

Although the Palestine People were not a party to the armistice agreements,
this does not prejudice their right to sovereignty. It is exactly this right
that grants the armistice agreements their full effect and significance of
merely establishing démarcation borders. If the Palestinian fact had been
non-existent, it would have been perfectly correct to consider the démarcation
borders as « de jure » boundaries. After ail, Israël, Jordan, and Egypt
would only have occupied a « terra nullius ».

http://rbdi.bruylant.be/public/mode...79.2 - pp. 500 à 538 - Frank van de Craen.pdf

From the same link:

If the Palestinians had entirely ceased to exist as a « people », be it because
of an explicit or even an implicit acceptance of, or acquiescence in, « foreign
rule » over their territory (45), a loss or extinction of their right to sovereignty
and independence could be said to have taken place. However, at no point in
time during the post-Mandate era substantial proof for this can be furnished.

 

[toastman]

Statehood no in effect Tinmore.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Statehood no in effect Tinmore.

That is a matter of political opinion.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Even so, a state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

 

[Kondor3]

It is clear that there are ways in which both the Israeli and Palestinian claims may be argued in a legal context.

It is also clear that none of that matters a damn.

"Mister Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." - apochryphally attributed to US President Andrew Jackson

Translation: there is no court of law capable of enforcing a judgment on all of this.

Conclusion: there is no point in overplaying the legal card - it's not going anywhere.

Given the perpetual intransigence of both sides, the only things that signify here are (a) possession and (b) strength.

Projected Outcome, in light of (a) and (b) above: the Palestinians should probably begin packing and preparing to leave the region.

After which, the world can go back to sleep, or get back to dealing with far more important things.

 

[Coyote]

Why does Tinmore required by you to care about anything other than Palestinians? Isn't he Palestinian?

??????? It APPEARS as though Coyote is suggesting it might ever be acceptable for a poster to only care about 'their' group or 'side'? That can't be what she meant!

Actually, it is. There are few to none here that I see who care globally. They have particularly issues or regions that they are passionate about. There are however, posters that take particular delight in pointing out how opposing viewpoints somehow should be caring about the world. Those particular posters however, do not exhibit that same standard themselves.

 

[MHunterB]

No ordinary human being is going to be able to care equally as passionately about every single group on Earth, no.

And we do seem to have an 'overload' of posters whose concern seems limited to one 'side' here, period.

But is that 'standard' acceptable ?

 

[Coyote]

No ordinary human being is going to be able to care equally as passionately about every single group on Earth, no.

Agree

And we do seem to have an 'overload' of posters whose concern seems limited to one 'side' here, period.

Yes. And those people encompass both the Pro-Israel and Pro-Palistinian sides. In fact many do not even post outside IP. But I only hear charges of lack of concern directed at Pro-Palistinian posters.

But is that 'standard' acceptable ?

In theory .

But in reality - we have no idea what other posters do outside of this messageboard - none. We don't know what charities they support, what organizations they are involved in, what actions they are engaging in. In fact, I bet we'd be surprised at how false some of our assumptions are - I know I've been surprised.

All we have are assumptions that because they hold strong views on the IP situation and consistently post there, they don't care about anything else.

The irony here is that the one's who levy those accusations do not themselves post much about other situations outside of IP.

 

[toastman]

Statehood no in effect Tinmore.

That is a matter of political opinion.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Even so, a state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

It is not a matter of opinion. Your link says it as clear as day !

Statehood: NOT IN EFFECT

Get over it

 

[P F Tinmore]

Statehood no in effect Tinmore.

That is a matter of political opinion.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Even so, a state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

It is not a matter of opinion. Your link says it as clear as day !

Statehood: NOT IN EFFECT

Get over it

"A state" is not the defining factor. It is the right to sovereignty.

If the Palestinians had entirely ceased to exist as a « people », be it because
of an explicit or even an implicit acceptance of, or acquiescence in, « foreign
rule » over their territory (45), a loss or extinction of their right to sovereignty
and independence could be said to have taken place. However, at no point in
time during the post-Mandate era substantial proof for this can be furnished.

http://rbdi.bruylant.be/public/mode...79.2 - pp. 500 à 538 - Frank van de Craen.pdf

At no time have the Palestinians relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.

 

[toastman]

There is no "State" of Palestine at this moment in time. I can't make it any clearer for you.

Spanish:
No hay ningún 'estado' de Palestina en este momento en el tiempo

French:
Il n'y a aucun « état » de la Palestine à cet instant

Hebrew:
אין "מדינה" של פלסטין ברגע זה

German:
Es gibt keinen „Zustand“ von Palästina in diesem Moment in der Zeit

Greek:
Δεν υπάρχει "μέλος" της Παλαιστίνης αυτή τη στιγμή

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no "State" of Palestine at this moment in time. I can't make it any clearer for you.

Spanish:
No hay ningún 'estado' de Palestina en este momento en el tiempo

French:
Il n'y a aucun « état » de la Palestine à cet instant

Hebrew:
אין "מדינה" של פלסטין ברגע זה

German:
Es gibt keinen „Zustand“ von Palästina in diesem Moment in der Zeit

Greek:
Δεν υπάρχει "μέλος" της Παλαιστίνης αυτή τη στιγμή

It doesn't matter in any language.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

At no time have the Palestinians relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.

Hmmmm....

At no time have the Jews relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[P F Tinmore]

At no time have the Palestinians relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.

Hmmmm....

At no time have the Jews relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.

Now we're getting somewhere.

The right to sovereignty belongs to the natives.

Israel was created by foreigners.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Israel was created by foreigners.

 

[toastman]

At no time have the Palestinians relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.

Hmmmm....

At no time have the Jews relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.

Now we're getting somewhere.

The right to sovereignty belongs to the natives.

Israel was created by foreigners.

I'm pretty sure Rocco threw that statement in the garbage for you . Where did you ever see the word foreigners ?