All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1948 occupied Palestine?

Damn, that's the funniest thing you've posted in weeks.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: From the River to the Sea
※→ Toddsterpatrol, et al,

1948 occupied Palestine?

Damn, that's the funniest thing you've posted in weeks.

(COMMENT)

A significant number of the pro-Arab Palestinians activates and the anti-Israeli movements have made the claim that the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was entirely illegal and that what the Israelis have done amounts to "occupation" of Arab Palestinian territory.

12. The Palestinian cause in its essence is a cause of an occupied land and a displaced people. The right of the Palestinian refugees and the displaced to return to their homes from which they were banished or were banned from returning to – whether in the lands occupied in 1948 or in 1967 (that is the whole of Palestine), is a natural right, both individual and collective.

18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah;
SOURCE: Document of General Principles and Policies

Similarly, the PLO consider the "Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void." And the PLO as well believe that the "Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization."

These attitudes, which have NOT changed from the offical statement made by Arab Higher Committee (AHC) Delegation in early 1948, has been the derivative of most political stances through to the present, and is the concept from which most anti-Peace positions the Arab Palestinians have maintained.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: From the River to the Sea
※→ Toddsterpatrol, et al,


(COMMENT)

A significant number of the pro-Arab Palestinians activates and the anti-Israeli movements have made the claim that the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was entirely illegal and that what the Israelis have done amounts to "occupation" of Arab Palestinian territory.



Similarly, the PLO consider the "Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void." And the PLO as well believe that the "Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization."

These attitudes, which have NOT changed from the offical statement made by Arab Higher Committee (AHC) Delegation in early 1948, has been the derivative of most political stances through to the present, and is the concept from which most anti-Peace positions the Arab Palestinians have maintained.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where are they wrong?

Links?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A significant number of the pro-Arab Palestinians activates and the anti-Israeli movements have made the claim that the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was entirely illegal and that what the Israelis have done amounts to "occupation" of Arab Palestinian territory.

I know. They're hilarious!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They should build more Jewish housing in the Jewish capital.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: From the River to the Sea
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Where are they wrong?

Links?

(COMMENT)

While the Allied Powers established the limitations on the boundaries, they were NOT explicitly final or allocated to specific inhabitants.

The Supreme Council Allied Powers came to an agreement (San Remo 1920) as to the way forward and submitted it to the Council of the League of Nations --- subsequently approved.

The territory of the future States, within such boundaries as may be determined, would be established later by the selected Mandatories appointed by the Principal Allied Powers.

These decisions were to be reflected in the forthcoming Treaties at the conclusion of hostilities. These provisions from the San Remo Agreements were first reflected in Section XIII - General Provisions - Article 132, Treaty of Sevres (1920). However, the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, and was renegotiated significantly. The Treaty of Lausanne was concluded in 1923 and went into effect in 1924. The key passage for the territories under discussion can be found in Section I - Part I Territorial Clauses - Article 1

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."​

There was no agreement with the inhabitants pertaining to the disposition of the territory. And with the exception of the Emirate of Transjordan, there was no provisional recognition of any other independent political subdivision, able to stand alone without the tutelage from the Mandatory.

In 1923, the year the Treaty of Lausanne was concluded, a third attempt was made to include the Arab population of the new British Government of Palestine (boundaries determined by the Allied Powers) into the process of building institutions necessary for independence. The Arab leaders, based on the uncompromising political position, declined that this offer. Again, in 1947 and early 1948, the Arab Leadership within the territory under the Mandate, again declined to participate in the creation of self-governing institutions because they could not get the entirety of the remaining territory west of the Jordan River. The Arabs of Palestine decided, more than 70 years ago, that if they could not have the entire sandbox, they would not accept anything less. The all-or-nothing position, adopted in the early 1920s, is still the undeveloped and immature position they hold today.

In the quarter-century since the Oslo Accords, the Arabs of Palestine have not made a good faith effort to maintain the regional peace and security or to take any effective measures for the prevention threats to the peace, the suppression of breaches in the peace, and to bring about peaceful means to resolutions on regional disputes. Even today, "the Fatah Central Committee emphasized in its statement that the [Fatah] Movement, with all its elements and leadership, calls to continue the uprising and struggle in the confrontation against the occupation forces… The Fatah Central Committee called on everyone to raise the level of confrontation in the coming days and hours in the Palestinian lands, the points of friction, and the settlers’ roads…

No matter what the Arab Palestinians may say or claim, they do not practice the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: From the River to the Sea
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,


(COMMENT)

While the Allied Powers established the limitations on the boundaries, they were NOT explicitly final or allocated to specific inhabitants.

The Supreme Council Allied Powers came to an agreement (San Remo 1920) as to the way forward and submitted it to the Council of the League of Nations --- subsequently approved.

The territory of the future States, within such boundaries as may be determined, would be established later by the selected Mandatories appointed by the Principal Allied Powers.

These decisions were to be reflected in the forthcoming Treaties at the conclusion of hostilities. These provisions from the San Remo Agreements were first reflected in Section XIII - General Provisions - Article 132, Treaty of Sevres (1920). However, the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, and was renegotiated significantly. The Treaty of Lausanne was concluded in 1923 and went into effect in 1924. The key passage for the territories under discussion can be found in Section I - Part I Territorial Clauses - Article 1

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."​

There was no agreement with the inhabitants pertaining to the disposition of the territory. And with the exception of the Emirate of Transjordan, there was no provisional recognition of any other independent political subdivision, able to stand alone without the tutelage from the Mandatory.

In 1923, the year the Treaty of Lausanne was concluded, a third attempt was made to include the Arab population of the new British Government of Palestine (boundaries determined by the Allied Powers) into the process of building institutions necessary for independence. The Arab leaders, based on the uncompromising political position, declined that this offer. Again, in 1947 and early 1948, the Arab Leadership within the territory under the Mandate, again declined to participate in the creation of self-governing institutions because they could not get the entirety of the remaining territory west of the Jordan River. The Arabs of Palestine decided, more than 70 years ago, that if they could not have the entire sandbox, they would not accept anything less. The all-or-nothing position, adopted in the early 1920s, is still the undeveloped and immature position they hold today.

In the quarter-century since the Oslo Accords, the Arabs of Palestine have not made a good faith effort to maintain the regional peace and security or to take any effective measures for the prevention threats to the peace, the suppression of breaches in the peace, and to bring about peaceful means to resolutions on regional disputes. Even today, "the Fatah Central Committee emphasized in its statement that the [Fatah] Movement, with all its elements and leadership, calls to continue the uprising and struggle in the confrontation against the occupation forces… The Fatah Central Committee called on everyone to raise the level of confrontation in the coming days and hours in the Palestinian lands, the points of friction, and the settlers’ roads…

No matter what the Arab Palestinians may say or claim, they do not practice the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory always goes to the people who live there.

 

[Hollie]

The territory always goes to the people who live there.

The Emir of "... because I say so", has issued his fatwa.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: From the River to the Sea
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

How naive can you be? There is no utopia anywhere in the world. What we think should be, does not necessarily mean that, in reality, it turns out that way.

The territory always goes to the people who live there.

(COMMENT)

The territory comes into the possession of the people who successfully achieve self-determination and establish self-governing institutions for that territory.

Just because the Arab Palestinians say they want it, does not mean they can achieve that objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The territory comes into the possession of the people who successfully achieve self-determination and establish self-governing institutions for that territory.

Do you mean the foreigners with guns?

 

[Hollie]

Do you mean the foreigners with guns?

You press the ludicrous notion that the Arabs-Moslems had some special entitlement to lands controlled by the Ottoman Turks.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: From the River to the Sea
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(REFERENCE)

ARTICLE 1. Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

(a) a permanent population;​

(b) a defined territory;​

(c) government; and​

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

The territory comes into the possession of the people who successfully achieve self-determination and establish self-governing institutions for that territory.

Do you mean the foreigners with guns?

(COMMENT)

In 1988, when the Jordanians abandon their sovereign holding west of the Jordan River, the Palestinians did not have:

(b) a defined territory;​

✦ There was no active Arab Palestinian Group that came up to stake a claim to any defined territory. They did not even try to make a claim.​

​

(c) government;​

✦ There was no active Arab Palestinian Group that had the self-governing institutions to set up a government.​

Even when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) did declare "independence," (NOV 1988), the Israelis already had a civil administration framework and territorial control of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem. The PLO had no right to just waltz in and claim everything west of the Jordan River to be the State of Palestine. Nor did the PLO have the self-governing institution to claim a functioning government.

​

This is a determination made (2012) twenty-four years after the Jordanians cut all ties wets of the Jordan River. By 2012, when the Deputy-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs wrote this determination, Israel had effective control for 45 years Area "C"...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

In 1988, when the Jordanians abandon

I am not talking about 1988. You keep bringing up Jordan like it means something. It doesn't.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: From the River to the Sea
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I am not talking about 1988. You keep bringing up Jordan like it means something. It doesn't.

(COMMENT)

You canNOT just skip over historical events just because it does not fit your agenda.

terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’:
SOURCE: Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. -- 3rd ed. pp596

ARTICLE 3 Convention on Rights and Duties of State
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, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

In July 1988 King Hussein of Jordan renounced his country’s legal claim to the West Bank, effectively eclipsing any prospect of an Israeli agreement with Jordan bypassing the Palestinians and the PLO.
SOURCE: Contested Lands by Sumantra Bose Copyright © 2007 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College • Harvard University Press pp244

Contrary to the Arab Palestinian popular belief, the Arabs of Palestine had not held "native" (or indigenous) title to any sovereignty over the territory formerly under the Mandate, for more than a thousand years.

Many would have you believe that the annexation of the territory west of the Jordan River (by Jordan) was illegal; and the issue of sovereignty is in question. Whether it was illegal or not is relatively unimportant. The regional (or sector) claims, by the Arab Palestinians, in and themselves provide no rights and title to territory in question. Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Territorial Integrity (SS-DT) are all closely related concepts. And even if the Israelis do not claim SS-DT over the territory they hold or maintain, it does estop the Arab Palestinians from making a valid claim for SS-DT. Except for Area "A" and the Gaza Strip, the Arab Palestinians (either the Ramallah or Gaza Governments) cannot establish a claim of self-government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: From the River to the Sea
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)

You canNOT just skip over historical events just because it does not fit your agenda.

Contrary to the Arab Palestinian popular belief, the Arabs of Palestine had not held "native" (or indigenous) title to any sovereignty over the territory formerly under the Mandate, for more than a thousand years.

Many would have you believe that the annexation of the territory west of the Jordan River (by Jordan) was illegal; and the issue of sovereignty is in question. Whether it was illegal or not is relatively unimportant. The regional (or sector) claims, by the Arab Palestinians, in and themselves provide no rights and title to territory in question. Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Territorial Integrity (SS-DT) are all closely related concepts. And even if the Israelis do not claim SS-DT over the territory they hold or maintain, it does estop the Arab Palestinians from making a valid claim for SS-DT. Except for Area "A" and the Gaza Strip, the Arab Palestinians (either the Ramallah or Gaza Governments) cannot establish a claim of self-government.

Most Respectfully,
R

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory,

When has the Zionist settler colonial project ever been peaceful?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Contrary to the Arab Palestinian popular belief, the Arabs of Palestine had not held "native" (or indigenous) title to any sovereignty over the territory formerly under the Mandate, for more than a thousand years.

In 1924 the Palestinians obtained Palestinian nationality by international law.

In 1925 the Palestinians obtained Palestinian citizenship by domestic law.

Subsequent UN resolutions say that the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to sovereignty.

So then, who has sovereignty?