Abbas refused peace offer and state in 2008

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What are you claiming is "misinterpreted?"

Try reading the LoN mandate and see what it says about when the Mandate ends

I have. The LoN stated that the Mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone. That was the official end game.

Britain, however, never pursued that goal and left accomplishing nothing but starting a never ending war.

Wrong the LoN mandate did not say that, it said the MANDATORY POWER was to render assistance. The Mandate was the legality behind the mandatory power, you always seem to confuse Britain's role as the mandatory power with the actual mandate. It was not the mandatory powers job to pursue any group in the furtherance of their self determination, just to assist them in their endeavours. This meant that they would not fight for the arab muslims against the Jews which is what you and other muslims believe was the whole point of the Mandate.

My assessment is correct.

Do you have a link to your load of crap?

Yes the same one I give you every time the Mandate of Palestine 1923.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

So are you now calling International law "a load of crap" ?

No, I am saying that your misinterpretation is a load of crap.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate Article 25 Territory was one of the "certain communities" that was recognized as able to "stand alone," early on, to be given some autonomy (eventually total independence) over 77% of the original territory (East of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. But Article 22 of the League Covenant does not guarantee or promise the Arab Palestinians West of the Jordan River exclusive rights over the remainder. In fact, even to this day the Arab Palestinians West of the Jordan River have been unable to demonstrate they can "stand alone;" or even adhere to the Basic Law and change government in a peaceful manner. So, if we are using Article 22 criteria, the Arab Palestinians, totally dependent on donor nation contributions, and basic functions performed by Israel, and unable to maintain any assemblance of law and order, --- would not be able to qualify as a "certain community."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What are you claiming is "misinterpreted?"

I have. The LoN stated that the Mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone. That was the official end game.

Britain, however, never pursued that goal and left accomplishing nothing but starting a never ending war.

Wrong the LoN mandate did not say that, it said the MANDATORY POWER was to render assistance. The Mandate was the legality behind the mandatory power, you always seem to confuse Britain's role as the mandatory power with the actual mandate. It was not the mandatory powers job to pursue any group in the furtherance of their self determination, just to assist them in their endeavours. This meant that they would not fight for the arab muslims against the Jews which is what you and other muslims believe was the whole point of the Mandate.

My assessment is correct.

Do you have a link to your load of crap?

Yes the same one I give you every time the Mandate of Palestine 1923.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

So are you now calling International law "a load of crap" ?

No, I am saying that your misinterpretation is a load of crap.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate Article 25 Territory was one of the "certain communities" that was recognized as able to "stand alone," early on, to be given some autonomy (eventually total independence) over 77% of the original territory (East of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. But Article 22 of the League Covenant does not guarantee or promise the Arab Palestinians West of the Jordan River exclusive rights over the remainder. In fact, even to this day the Arab Palestinians West of the Jordan River have been unable to demonstrate they can "stand alone;" or even adhere to the Basic Law and change government in a peaceful manner. So, if we are using Article 22 criteria, the Arab Palestinians, totally dependent on donor nation contributions, and basic functions performed by Israel, and unable to maintain any assemblance of law and order, --- would not be able to qualify as a "certain community."

Most Respectfully,
R

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?

It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't mix apples with oranges.

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?
It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant of the League of Nations is a global policy document.

The 1925 Citizenship Order is a region specific directive.

Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant speaks in generalities.

The Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the 1925 Citizenship Order, are very specific in application and intent. There is no mention of the Palestinians in the Covenant. However, under the authority of the Covenant (1919), the Mandate (1922) was written with more specific guidance; and the Citizenship Order (1925) was written under the same authority; but even more specific.

The Mandate specifies the basic objectives. The Citizenship Order applies to all inhabitants of the region; but only in regards to authorizing the granting of Palestine Mandate Citizenship. None of these directives have been countermanded by the later documents that were all subordinate to the Covenant.

Article 22 of the Covenant, does not specifically address any special the Arab Palestinian. And it does not conflict with the League direction and authority issued to the Mandatory.

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine; when in fact it talks in generalities. Only the Orders in Council, the Mandate, and Citizenship Order are directive in nature specific to any one people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Try reading the LoN mandate and see what it says about when the Mandate ends

I have. The LoN stated that the Mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone. That was the official end game.

Britain, however, never pursued that goal and left accomplishing nothing but starting a never ending war.

Wrong the LoN mandate did not say that, it said the MANDATORY POWER was to render assistance. The Mandate was the legality behind the mandatory power, you always seem to confuse Britain's role as the mandatory power with the actual mandate. It was not the mandatory powers job to pursue any group in the furtherance of their self determination, just to assist them in their endeavours. This meant that they would not fight for the arab muslims against the Jews which is what you and other muslims believe was the whole point of the Mandate.

My assessment is correct.

Do you have a link to your load of crap?

Yes the same one I give you every time the Mandate of Palestine 1923.



The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;



So are you now calling International law "a load of crap" ?

No, I am saying that your misinterpretation is a load of crap.

What misinterpretation as the words are there and they have no other definition. The LoN was the ruling power and they called the shots

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What are you claiming is "misinterpreted?"

Wrong the LoN mandate did not say that, it said the MANDATORY POWER was to render assistance. The Mandate was the legality behind the mandatory power, you always seem to confuse Britain's role as the mandatory power with the actual mandate. It was not the mandatory powers job to pursue any group in the furtherance of their self determination, just to assist them in their endeavours. This meant that they would not fight for the arab muslims against the Jews which is what you and other muslims believe was the whole point of the Mandate.

My assessment is correct.

Do you have a link to your load of crap?

Yes the same one I give you every time the Mandate of Palestine 1923.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

So are you now calling International law "a load of crap" ?

No, I am saying that your misinterpretation is a load of crap.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate Article 25 Territory was one of the "certain communities" that was recognized as able to "stand alone," early on, to be given some autonomy (eventually total independence) over 77% of the original territory (East of the Jordan River) to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. But Article 22 of the League Covenant does not guarantee or promise the Arab Palestinians West of the Jordan River exclusive rights over the remainder. In fact, even to this day the Arab Palestinians West of the Jordan River have been unable to demonstrate they can "stand alone;" or even adhere to the Basic Law and change government in a peaceful manner. So, if we are using Article 22 criteria, the Arab Palestinians, totally dependent on donor nation contributions, and basic functions performed by Israel, and unable to maintain any assemblance of law and order, --- would not be able to qualify as a "certain community."

Most Respectfully,
R

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?

It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

And just where does it state that the arab muslims, which is what you mean by Palestinians, where the only inhabitants of Palestine. You seem to forget that Palestine took in trans Jordan as well, so the rules applied equally to that portion of the land. For the record in 1917 when the LoN came into being it was commonly understood that the only Palestinians were the Jews, and the arab muslims called themselves Syrians

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't mix apples with oranges.

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?
It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant of the League of Nations is a global policy document.

The 1925 Citizenship Order is a region specific directive.

Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant speaks in generalities.

The Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the 1925 Citizenship Order, are very specific in application and intent. There is no mention of the Palestinians in the Covenant. However, under the authority of the Covenant (1919), the Mandate (1922) was written with more specific guidance; and the Citizenship Order (1925) was written under the same authority; but even more specific.

The Mandate specifies the basic objectives. The Citizenship Order applies to all inhabitants of the region; but only in regards to authorizing the granting of Palestine Mandate Citizenship. None of these directives have been countermanded by the later documents that were all subordinate to the Covenant.

Article 22 of the Covenant, does not specifically address any special the Arab Palestinian. And it does not conflict with the League direction and authority issued to the Mandatory.

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine; when in fact it talks in generalities. Only the Orders in Council, the Mandate, and Citizenship Order are directive in nature specific to any one people.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine;​

No, you are. Where does it say that everybody has rights except the Palestinians?

 

[aris2chat]

Arab states refused a palestinian state at the UN
Egypt and Jordan did not create a state for the palestinians.
Arafat and Abbas both turned Israel's offers down.
Jordan even offered the palestinians in Jordan and the west bank citizenship as Jordanians and Arafat the PM office. The result was black september, massacre of 20,000 and exite to Arafat and his forces...............which also resulted in the Lebanese civil war and Arafat and his forces being shipped to Tunisia.

One mistake on the part of the palestinian leadership after another.

Abba Eban was so right

 

[RoccoR]

member, et al,

The Palestinians stopped suicide bombings simply because they became ineffective by various security countermeasures implemented by the Israelis. Not because they had some moral epiphany.

The Palestinians stopped suicide bombing years ago.

You need to update your propaganda.

(COMMENT)

Of course the radicalized hostile Arab Palestinians still argue on a daily basis that they have the right to attack Israel and its citizens by "any and all means available." Just within the last week, someone right here in this discussion group made that very pitch.

Of course Israel continues to bomb homes killing entire families and calling it self defense. What is your opinion about that?

(COMMENT)

There is a vast and VERY BIG difference between the inadvertent casualties created when the radical Islamic Resistance deliberately locates Military Objectives (C3I and combat arms) inside Densely Populated Areas to render certain hostile Arab Palestinians immune from Israeli counter-strikes.” (A violation of Rule 23, Customary IHL and Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) ICC Statute.)

And it is VERY different from casualties inflicted when the Hostile Arab Palestinians intentionally fails to remove Civilians from the Vicinity of Hostile Arab Palestinian and radical Islamic Resistance military operations and terrorist/Jihadist activities. (A violation of Rule 24, Customary IHL and Article 58(a) of Additional Protocol I, Fourth Geneva Convention.)

When Hostile Arab Palestinian and radical Islamic Resistance elements intentionally target civilians, it is extremely different from collateral casualties that occur when Israeli forces target Hostile Arab Palestinian and radical Islamic Resistance elements.

Amnesty International
Palestinian armed groups displayed a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians by repeatedly launching indiscriminate rockets and mortars towards civilian areas in Israel during the conflict in July and August 2014, said Amnesty International in a new report published today.

Unlawful and deadly: Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict provides evidence that several attacks launched from inside the Gaza Strip amount to war crimes. Six civilians in Israel, including a four-year-old boy, were killed in such attacks during the 50-day conflict. In the deadliest incident believed to have been caused by a Palestinian attack, 11 children were among 13 Palestinian civilians killed when a projectile fired from within the Gaza Strip landed in the al-Shati refugee camp.

All the rockets used by Palestinian armed groups are unguided projectiles which cannot be accurately aimed at specific targets and are inherently indiscriminate; using such weapons is prohibited under international law and their use constitutes a war crime. Mortars are also imprecise munitions and should never be used to attack military targets located in or near civilian areas.

SOURCE: PALESTINIAN ARMED GROUPS KILLED CIVILIANS ON BOTH SIDES IN ATTACKS AMOUNTING TO WAR CRIMES IN GAZA CONFLICT, 26 MARCH 2015
​

I see the intent of Hostile Arab Palestinian and radical Islamic Resistance elements as very dangerous and well outside the normal parameters of hostilities. The Hostile Arab Palestinian and radical Islamic Resistance elements are attempting to set the conditions for Israel not to respond to hostile activity for fear of inflicting casualties; OR, to create the consequence of excessive civilian casualties as a result of Israeli engagements in areas selected to cover hostile Arab operations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't make that claim at all (show me where I said that). What I have stated (several times) is that the Arab Palestinians did not have an exclusive right to anything.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't mix apples with oranges.

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?
It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant of the League of Nations is a global policy document.

The 1925 Citizenship Order is a region specific directive.

Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant speaks in generalities.

The Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the 1925 Citizenship Order, are very specific in application and intent. There is no mention of the Palestinians in the Covenant. However, under the authority of the Covenant (1919), the Mandate (1922) was written with more specific guidance; and the Citizenship Order (1925) was written under the same authority; but even more specific.

The Mandate specifies the basic objectives. The Citizenship Order applies to all inhabitants of the region; but only in regards to authorizing the granting of Palestine Mandate Citizenship. None of these directives have been countermanded by the later documents that were all subordinate to the Covenant.

Article 22 of the Covenant, does not specifically address any special the Arab Palestinian. And it does not conflict with the League direction and authority issued to the Mandatory.

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine; when in fact it talks in generalities. Only the Orders in Council, the Mandate, and Citizenship Order are directive in nature specific to any one people.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine;​

No, you are. Where does it say that everybody has rights except the Palestinians?

(COMMENT)

I don't try to deprive the Arab Palestinians of any particular right. But I understand that all the rights that the Arab Palestinian claims, are rights that the Jewish People have. And that the intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home, in whatever form that ultimately would take. And that they put that intent in writing, several times. And that the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Arab League cannot use force that denies the Jewish People the right to self-determination that was attempting to follow the Steps Preparatory to Independence, recommended by the General Assembly, and reject by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

aris2chat, et al,

I wonder WHY President Abbas declined the offer?

Abbas Admits For the First Time That He Turned Down Peace Offer in 2008

(COMMENT)

While we've known for several decades that the Palestinian method of choice on these matters has been the continuation of violence. But I am surprised that we didn't make more progress --- towards some agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

aris2chat, et al,

I wonder WHY President Abbas declined the offer?

Abbas Admits For the First Time That He Turned Down Peace Offer in 2008

(COMMENT)

While we've known for several decades that the Palestinian method of choice on these matters has been the continuation of violence. But I am surprised that we didn't make more progress --- towards some agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

His life might have been part of his reason, lack of acceptance by certain factions and not being able to enforce control or protect Israeli security........................

If he accepted and a large percentage did not, the rebound against the palestinians, not just by Israel but the world, would mean the total collapse of the palestinian dream. They would not get another chance at a state.

Much the same situation as Arafat.

Each time the offer gets smaller. Dragging this out keeps the money flowing, but that too seems to be nearing its limits. Mostly the palestinian people are not united and not ready to live side by side with an Israeli state in peace. Mostly a fault of education that palestinians are not being taught how to live in peace.

Abbas did not and still does not speak for all palestinians. A full scale revolt between the palestinians would decimate the palestinians and their hopes.

Refusing puts the blame on Israel for not meeting absolutely all and then some of the demands and Abbas remains the patriot.

 

[USAF 2023]

aris2chat, et al,

I wonder WHY President Abbas declined the offer?

Abbas Admits For the First Time That He Turned Down Peace Offer in 2008

(COMMENT)

While we've known for several decades that the Palestinian method of choice on these matters has been the continuation of violence. But I am surprised that we didn't make more progress --- towards some agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

His life might have been part of his reason, lack of acceptance by certain factions and not being able to enforce control or protect Israeli security........................

If he accepted and a large percentage did not, the rebound against the palestinians, not just by Israel but the world, would mean the total collapse of the palestinian dream. They would not get another chance at a state.

Much the same situation as Arafat.

Each time the offer gets smaller. Dragging this out keeps the money flowing, but that too seems to be nearing its limits. Mostly the palestinian people are not united and not ready to live side by side with an Israeli state in peace. Mostly a fault of education that palestinians are not being taught how to live in peace.

Abbas did not and still does not speak for all palestinians. A full scale revolt between the palestinians would decimate the palestinians and their hopes.

Refusing puts the blame on Israel for not meeting absolutely all and then some of the demands and Abbas remains the patriot.

What they are demanding and will never get are Borders that were never recognized, " Right of Return" which will never happen and some of " Israel Proper" annexing Gaza to the W. Bank actually making Israel smaller then it was in 67. What are they offering for compensation?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't mix apples with oranges.

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?
It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant of the League of Nations is a global policy document.

The 1925 Citizenship Order is a region specific directive.

Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant speaks in generalities.

The Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the 1925 Citizenship Order, are very specific in application and intent. There is no mention of the Palestinians in the Covenant. However, under the authority of the Covenant (1919), the Mandate (1922) was written with more specific guidance; and the Citizenship Order (1925) was written under the same authority; but even more specific.

The Mandate specifies the basic objectives. The Citizenship Order applies to all inhabitants of the region; but only in regards to authorizing the granting of Palestine Mandate Citizenship. None of these directives have been countermanded by the later documents that were all subordinate to the Covenant.

Article 22 of the Covenant, does not specifically address any special the Arab Palestinian. And it does not conflict with the League direction and authority issued to the Mandatory.

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine; when in fact it talks in generalities. Only the Orders in Council, the Mandate, and Citizenship Order are directive in nature specific to any one people.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine;​

No, you are. Where does it say that everybody has rights except the Palestinians?

Were the Jews not Palestinians then ?

A reply in the negative will show you do not understand the reality

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't mix apples with oranges.

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?
It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant of the League of Nations is a global policy document.

The 1925 Citizenship Order is a region specific directive.

Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant speaks in generalities.

The Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the 1925 Citizenship Order, are very specific in application and intent. There is no mention of the Palestinians in the Covenant. However, under the authority of the Covenant (1919), the Mandate (1922) was written with more specific guidance; and the Citizenship Order (1925) was written under the same authority; but even more specific.

The Mandate specifies the basic objectives. The Citizenship Order applies to all inhabitants of the region; but only in regards to authorizing the granting of Palestine Mandate Citizenship. None of these directives have been countermanded by the later documents that were all subordinate to the Covenant.

Article 22 of the Covenant, does not specifically address any special the Arab Palestinian. And it does not conflict with the League direction and authority issued to the Mandatory.

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine; when in fact it talks in generalities. Only the Orders in Council, the Mandate, and Citizenship Order are directive in nature specific to any one people.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine;​

No, you are. Where does it say that everybody has rights except the Palestinians?

Were the Jews not Palestinians then ?

A reply in the negative will show you do not understand the reality

Excellent question.

I have seen many numbers from different sources but they are all a few percent of each other.

At the time of WWI, about 5% were Jews, about 15% were Christians, and virtually all of the rest were Muslims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't make that claim at all (show me where I said that). What I have stated (several times) is that the Arab Palestinians did not have an exclusive right to anything.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't mix apples with oranges.

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?
It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant of the League of Nations is a global policy document.

The 1925 Citizenship Order is a region specific directive.

Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant speaks in generalities.

The Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the 1925 Citizenship Order, are very specific in application and intent. There is no mention of the Palestinians in the Covenant. However, under the authority of the Covenant (1919), the Mandate (1922) was written with more specific guidance; and the Citizenship Order (1925) was written under the same authority; but even more specific.

The Mandate specifies the basic objectives. The Citizenship Order applies to all inhabitants of the region; but only in regards to authorizing the granting of Palestine Mandate Citizenship. None of these directives have been countermanded by the later documents that were all subordinate to the Covenant.

Article 22 of the Covenant, does not specifically address any special the Arab Palestinian. And it does not conflict with the League direction and authority issued to the Mandatory.

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine; when in fact it talks in generalities. Only the Orders in Council, the Mandate, and Citizenship Order are directive in nature specific to any one people.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine;​

No, you are. Where does it say that everybody has rights except the Palestinians?

(COMMENT)

I don't try to deprive the Arab Palestinians of any particular right. But I understand that all the rights that the Arab Palestinian claims, are rights that the Jewish People have. And that the intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home, in whatever form that ultimately would take. And that they put that intent in writing, several times. And that the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Arab League cannot use force that denies the Jewish People the right to self-determination that was attempting to follow the Steps Preparatory to Independence, recommended by the General Assembly, and reject by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

What I have stated (several times) is that the Arab Palestinians did not have an exclusive right to anything.​

Do you mean like the French do not have exclusive rights to France or the Italians do not have exclusive rights to Italy?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of how the Arab Palestinian attempts to change the basis for the decisions made. It is not at all a matter of real estate, land ownership, or numbers of culturally defined people. Who owns land (Arabs this % and Jewish that %) or how many there were --- does not effect the decisions of sovereignty. This is an example of intellectually inferior concept on the part of Arab Palestinians..

Excellent question.

I have seen many numbers from different sources but they are all a few percent of each other.

At the time of WWI, about 5% were Jews, about 15% were Christians, and virtually all of the rest were Muslims.

(COMMENT)

The percentages are totally irrelevant.

The entire purpose for the decisions made by the Allied Powers, that territory to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic renounced title to in favor of the Allied Powers (Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty) were based on a higher intellectual plane and moral obligation. The decisions were based on the recognized need to finally establish a particular territory in which the Jewish Culture could be preserved and protected from those that would otherwise destroy them (like the Arabs and like factions in Europe - demonstrated time and time again through history). I'm not even sure that the Allied Powers who were making the decisions cared whether or not the Arabs of the Middle East under stood or were capable of ever understanding the need and obligation to extend and preserve the Jewish Culture from extinction (just as we preserve the various endangered species throughout the world).

And it is not expected that the Arab Palestinian, culturally still passing jihad and armed struggle form one generation to the next generation, for their self serving political advantage, would come to understand or ever recognizing that endangered and threatened cultures within the species “are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, and developmentally of value to the world and all its people.” In this argument, social scientists, and psychologists, are concerned by the disappearance of unique culture for the importance of the protection of life and diversity. The Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take) has made --- and continues to make --- contributions to the world and its species --- more than demonstrating its value and worth to the species.

However --- there are some cultures within the species that are less vibrant. While the Jewish culture has made several major contributions to humanity, there are some very vocal anti-Jewish cultures that have not advanced or made any significant contributions to the species nearly a thousand years. They have more than proven their value.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of how the Arab Palestinian attempts to change the basis for the decisions made. It is not at all a matter of real estate, land ownership, or numbers of culturally defined people. Who owns land (Arabs this % and Jewish that %) or how many there were --- does not effect the decisions of sovereignty. This is an example of intellectually inferior concept on the part of Arab Palestinians..

Excellent question.

I have seen many numbers from different sources but they are all a few percent of each other.

At the time of WWI, about 5% were Jews, about 15% were Christians, and virtually all of the rest were Muslims.

(COMMENT)

The percentages are totally irrelevant.

The entire purpose for the decisions made by the Allied Powers, that territory to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic renounced title to in favor of the Allied Powers (Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty) were based on a higher intellectual plane and moral obligation. The decisions were based on the recognized need to finally establish a particular territory in which the Jewish Culture could be preserved and protected from those that would otherwise destroy them (like the Arabs and like factions in Europe - demonstrated time and time again through history). I'm not even sure that the Allied Powers who were making the decisions cared whether or not the Arabs of the Middle East under stood or were capable of ever understanding the need and obligation to extend and preserve the Jewish Culture from extinction (just as we preserve the various endangered species throughout the world).

And it is not expected that the Arab Palestinian, culturally still passing jihad and armed struggle form one generation to the next generation, for their self serving political advantage, would come to understand or ever recognizing that endangered and threatened cultures within the species “are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, and developmentally of value to the world and all its people.” In this argument, social scientists, and psychologists, are concerned by the disappearance of unique culture for the importance of the protection of life and diversity. The Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take) has made --- and continues to make --- contributions to the world and its species --- more than demonstrating its value and worth to the species.

However --- there are some cultures within the species that are less vibrant. While the Jewish culture has made several major contributions to humanity, there are some very vocal anti-Jewish cultures that have not advanced or made any significant contributions to the species nearly a thousand years. They have more than proven their value.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jews lived more peacefully in Palestine before the Mandate than since.

Why did these clowns destroy a good thing?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've missed the point again. The Arab-Palestinians never really had a claim to sovereignty (over any of the territory), because they did not have sovereignty to begin with. And it is very unclear, depending on which Arab-Palestinians you might listen to, as to whether they actually have any form of sovereignty now. Certainly, they have no exclusive rights; except those given to them by external powers.

(COMMENT)

I don't try to deprive the Arab Palestinians of any particular right. But I understand that all the rights that the Arab Palestinian claims, are rights that the Jewish People have. And that the intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home, in whatever form that ultimately would take. And that they put that intent in writing, several times. And that the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Arab League cannot use force that denies the Jewish People the right to self-determination that was attempting to follow the Steps Preparatory to Independence, recommended by the General Assembly, and reject by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

What I have stated (several times) is that the Arab Palestinians did not have an exclusive right to anything.​

Do you mean like the French do not have exclusive rights to France or the Italians do not have exclusive rights to Italy?

(COMMENT)

France and Italy, both had to fight and defend their sovereignty, several times, before their territory demarcation was finally negotiated. For instance, if you go to the Territorial evolution of France, you will see a little .gif that show you over time how the borders of France have changed.

As for Italy, after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, the national underwent several changes in the 11th thru 13 Centuries. Even "1130 were united in the newly created Norman Kingdom of Sicily."

You will take notice that the concept of "exclusivity to territorial sovereignty" is even challenged today. It was only last year, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to what the International Community say they recognize, or not recognize, no one is going to argue with a Russian Border Guard.

But in this case (Israeli-Palestinian), you --- again did not get it. I think you will find that I was making the point that the Arab Palestinians did not have the exclusive right to self-determination, at the expense of the Allied Powers acceptance of --- Turkish renounced the titles to the territory --- of that granted by the Allied Powers in the decision to establish the Jewish National Home and facilitate lawful immigration under the acceptance of title and claim from the treaties. And it is questionable still, whether the decision on the part of the Palestinians to allow annexation of the West Bank, did not have a legal effect. Or that the decision by the Hashemite King to rid itself of the troublesome West Bank (severance of all administrative and legal ties --- Disengagement from the West Bank --- formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature) did not have some impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To protect and preserve the legacy for the future.

The Jews lived more peacefully in Palestine before the Mandate than since.

Why did these clowns destroy a good thing?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish People, if they had not exercise the right of self-determination, would never have the security and protection from radical Islamics and Jihadist, taking over the government and destroying the Jewish People and their safe haven under the color of Shari Law or some other radicalized form of Islam.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't mix apples with oranges.

Where does it say that the Palestinians were not the "inhabitants" mentioned in the LoN Covenant?
It seems that the citizenship order of 1925 said they were.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant of the League of Nations is a global policy document.

The 1925 Citizenship Order is a region specific directive.

Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant speaks in generalities.

The Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the 1925 Citizenship Order, are very specific in application and intent. There is no mention of the Palestinians in the Covenant. However, under the authority of the Covenant (1919), the Mandate (1922) was written with more specific guidance; and the Citizenship Order (1925) was written under the same authority; but even more specific.

The Mandate specifies the basic objectives. The Citizenship Order applies to all inhabitants of the region; but only in regards to authorizing the granting of Palestine Mandate Citizenship. None of these directives have been countermanded by the later documents that were all subordinate to the Covenant.

Article 22 of the Covenant, does not specifically address any special the Arab Palestinian. And it does not conflict with the League direction and authority issued to the Mandatory.

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine; when in fact it talks in generalities. Only the Orders in Council, the Mandate, and Citizenship Order are directive in nature specific to any one people.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to make the Covenant grant something special to Palestine;​

No, you are. Where does it say that everybody has rights except the Palestinians?

Were the Jews not Palestinians then ?

A reply in the negative will show you do not understand the reality

Excellent question.

I have seen many numbers from different sources but they are all a few percent of each other.

At the time of WWI, about 5% were Jews, about 15% were Christians, and virtually all of the rest were Muslims.

And the Ottoman census shows that in 1875 the Jews were the majority, followed by the Christians and the arab muslims were the least of the population. So what happened between 1875 and 1917 to cause such a massive explosion in the arab muslims population. It was a physical impossibility for girls to produce multiple live births in the numbers needed year on year. They did not have the medical knowledge to begin with, and disease was rampant at that time. So the only way they could have increased was through illegal immigration from the surrounding areas. But this was by the by as the LoN Mandate called on the Jews of the world to migrate and close settle the land until they were able to declare independence and free determination.