Anti-BDS Bill - Bravo

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al

No! You need to read it again.

No matter!

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful. There were no areas under the sovereign control of the Israelis that were in conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that Israel's occupation of Palestine was peaceful?

(COMMENT)

In the 1949 Armistice, Israel was NOT one of the occupying powers.

• Jordan occupied the West Bank.
• Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
​

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful.

There was no area within Israeli sovereignty that was under an insurgency or civil war conditions. It was al on the Arab League side of the Armistice Line derived from the FEBA.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

OK, be that as it may --- from your perspective --- tell me: Who was the senior Arab in the Region?

montelatici, et al,

Oh this is funny.

What would Prince Faisal, a Bedouin, have to do with Palestine. There were less Bedouins in Palestine than Jews at the time.

You are incorrigible. Herzl's plans are in writing in his autobiography.

(COMMENT)

The senior Arab Leader for the entire region, especially for the Arab Irregulars on the Allied side, was Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, King of the Hejaz. Prince Faisal was the King's son and dispatched to negotiate on the Kings behalf. When Prince Faisal entered Damascus, he was the most senior Arab Leader.

Most Respectfully,
R

Faisal was not the senior Arab leader for the whole region. He certainly could not have been the leader of Palestinians who were not Bedouins and at the time 20% Christian. The Palestinians had their own leaders, Christian and Muslim.

(COMMENT)

I think that you will find that Prince Faisal (later King Faisal I) was a "Hashemite" and came from the Royal Family of the Hejaz. It so happened that most of the irregular Arab Calvary that Prince Faisal assembled in WWI came from various Beduin Tribes. There are more than a dozen major Beduin Tribes that are generally classified as nomadic Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well --- actually it appears that you are having trouble with the Map.

No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.

See, that wasn't so hard was it?

(COMMENT)

The Base Map comes from the Survey Report of Palestine in 1945. In 1945, the Palestine Order in Council still applied.

This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
SOURCE: Palestine Order in Council 10 AUG 1922 Part I - - Paragraph 1.
​

EXCERPT:
In 1948, in a coordinated public release by the UN and the Mandatory, --- made it clear, that "Palestine" (territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies) was of a particular type.

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed."
SOURCE: UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT UN Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
​

You should notice that the Base Map (1946) was overlaid with the recommendations made by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (1947 Data).

The international boundaries were a product of the Allied Powers; set by a number of different authorities. But they do not confer any special status or change to the Mandate citizenship of the indigenous population or the nature of the Administration.

I'm not sure of what you think you see on the map. Maps generally draw their name from the most prominent feature in the center of the Map. The center of UN Map 82 & 103 Series is the Region of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

Once again you confuse the mandate with the mandatory. Read the above again the mandatory went poof but the mandate varied on under the remit of the UN. it was Palestine that was the mandate, and the mandatory was Palestine, something beyond your miniscule intelligence
.
.Like what, as it seems these questions only exist in your fantasy world and not in the real one.
The legal aspects are spelt out in the UN resolutions and consultative documents freely available

 

[Phoenall]

I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.

No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.

See, that wasn't so hard was it?

Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.

Your most compelling cut and paste.

As it is obvious, the fraud you attempted to perpetrate - a mythical 'Pal'istanian' State, was a fraud.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The only thing you have is out of Israel's bullshit playbook.

So when did the Ottoman state of Palestine come into existence then, as your link states that

'''Palestine'''{{ref label|naming|i|}} ({{lang-ar|فلسطين}} ''{{transl|ar|DIN|Filasṭīn/Falasṭīn/Filisṭīn}}''), officially declared as the '''State of Palestine''' ({{lang-ar|دولة فلسطين}}, ''{{transl|ar|DIN|Dawlat Filasṭin}}''),<ref name="declaration1988"/><ref name=Pagep161/><ref name=Bissiop433>{{cite book|title=The World: A Third World Guide 1995–96|editor= Bissio, Robert Remo | location = Montevideo | publisher= [[ITeM|Instituto del Tercer Mundo]]|year=1995| page = 443 | isbn=978-0-855-98291-1}}</ref> is a state that was [[Declaration of independence|proclaimed]] in exile in [[Algiers]] on 15 November 1988, when the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]]'s (PLO) [[Palestinian National Council|National Council]] (PNC) adopted the unilateral [[Palestinian Declaration of Independence]]. At the time of the 1988 declaration, the PLO did not exercise control over any territory,<ref name=Zartmanp43>Bercovitch and Zartman, 2008, [The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution p. 43] (via [[Google Books]]).</ref> and its claimed territory remains under [[Israel]]i occupation.<ref name="saeb">{{Cite news|author=Staff |title=Palestinians 'May Declare State'|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7254434.stm| publisher =[[BBC News]] |date=20 February 2008|accessdate=2011-09-27 | quote = But another negotiator and senior official, Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. 'Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence', Mr Erekat said.}}</ref> It claims the [[Palestinian territories]]<ref name="declaration1988">[[Palestinian Declaration of Independence]] (1988).</ref> and has designated [[Jerusalem]] as the capital of Palestine



For the hard of understanding it says Palestine the nation was declared independent in 1988.


So even your own Cut and Pastes say that there was no nation of Palestine prior to 1988.


All you have is your fantasy world and third party lies

 

[Phoenall]

Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.

Your most compelling cut and paste.

As it is obvious, the fraud you attempted to perpetrate - a mythical 'Pal'istanian' State, was a fraud.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The only thing you have is out of Israel's bullshit playbook.

Sweetie. This has all been addressed for you multiple times across multiple threads.

You're free to selectively rewrite history, but nothing in your wiki cut and paste will retroactively make your mythical Pal'istan a state.

Indeed, you people always shovel Israeli shit without refuting the issues.

So when your own source of evidence states that Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, but the legal entity of Palestine the mandate was in evidence for legal purposes from November 3 2011 according to your link.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly,

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome.

They didn't have to. Palestine was already under military occupation by allied forces.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants did not make an invasion. The immigration was facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all rights and title.

For some reason, you Arab Palestinians are desperately trying to make some foundation that there was either:

• Some express promise of sovereignty and independence made to a specific aspect of Arab;
• There was some previous Arab government beyond that of the Ottoman Empire that exercised Arab Sovereignty.
​

The Arab Palestinian has no previous claim to the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh, to the contrary. Palestine is a successor state defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the legal citizens according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and domestic law. The Palestinians are the people of the place with all of the rights of "a people" in a defined territory.

No as that applied to the legal entity the mandate of Palestine, made clear in the treaties designating it as such.

What international law states that the Palestinians are the legal citizens then, and which Palestinians are these ?

So does this mean that the arab muslims that illegally migrated to Palestine between 1917 and the present day are not legally citizens of that mandate of Palestine. But the Jews who were invited to migrate and given mandate of Palestine citizenship are. Or will you attempt to re-write history again ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

(COMMENT)

On the termination of the Mandate, midnight 14/15 May 1948, (near) simultaneously (given leeway with the technology of the day), the provisional government, in accordance with the General Assembly Steps Preparatory to Independence, announced its independence. And for a matter of hours, prior to the illegal invasion by the Arab League, the territory, less the newly created Jewish State of Israel, became a legal entity known as the "Former Territory under the Mandate."

That is how thing were done back then and STILL are how thing are done today. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Former Soviet Union" (FSU) after the Collapse of the Soviet Union and before the development of the Russian Federation and breakaway Republics. Similarly, I'm sure you've heard of the "Former Yugoslavia" (Territory of the Former Yugoslavia) before the collapse and subsequent fragmentation into the socialist republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. And there are still two territories we call "autonomous provinces" that remain separate from the remainder of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina).

As you may or may not know, as territorial issues go, the Palestine is fairly cut'n'dry. There are other issues of self-determination that are much more complicated than the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. As an example, the territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia, and the provisional Government of Kosovo, with an ethnic-Albanian population that wishes to exercise self-determination.

You act as if some strange political magic has occurred regarding the "former territory under the Mandate" in the establishment of Israel and the quasi-government of the State of Palestine.

In the late 19th Century, just prior to the Great War, Lord Salisbury said:

"it was a time when territorial boundaries were being drawn across the world with little or no regard for natural or cultural boundaries. These boundaries were designed to reinforce an international system of --- absolute sovereignty --- of the state in which boundaries were derived from geo-military occupation of space as determined by the consenting colonial powers. More than a century later, many of these territorial boundaries remain as they were drawn, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred to the international system and the significant challenges that have been made to the concept of sovereignty with precise boundaries. Yet, these territorial boundaries and the ideas that were behind them, still form the foundations for the present international legal system."
​

In Lord Salisbury's day (former British Prime Minister - Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury), indeed - in the day that most of the political powers --- in the time of the Great War and the division of the Ottoman Empire --- geo-military occupation and control of the territory was the principle for which sovereignty and rule was extended. This is similarly reinforced in a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

It is only the illiterate that try to apply the concepts, values and changes of the 21st Century to the decisions and practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. It would be like trying to criticize Sir Isaac Newton work on Gravity, for not applying the concepts of Einstein's Space-Time.

(THE NON-APPLICABILITY of NSGT DESIGNATION)

The prediction of the establishment of a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) would have been applicable except for the fact that only hours after the termination of the Mandate, the Arab League forcibly entered the territory; and the War of Independence ensued. By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League. There was no NSGT; and it is a question as to whether the was any territory that would have been a separate legal entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco the neocolonialist just keeps on spewing justifications for the dispossession of the native people by invading colonists.

It is amazing that there are still people that support colonization and dispossession of native inhabitants by Europeans.

Like yourself that is a colonist and invader of America

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

(COMMENT)

On the termination of the Mandate, midnight 14/15 May 1948, (near) simultaneously (given leeway with the technology of the day), the provisional government, in accordance with the General Assembly Steps Preparatory to Independence, announced its independence. And for a matter of hours, prior to the illegal invasion by the Arab League, the territory, less the newly created Jewish State of Israel, became a legal entity known as the "Former Territory under the Mandate."

That is how thing were done back then and STILL are how thing are done today. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Former Soviet Union" (FSU) after the Collapse of the Soviet Union and before the development of the Russian Federation and breakaway Republics. Similarly, I'm sure you've heard of the "Former Yugoslavia" (Territory of the Former Yugoslavia) before the collapse and subsequent fragmentation into the socialist republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. And there are still two territories we call "autonomous provinces" that remain separate from the remainder of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina).

As you may or may not know, as territorial issues go, the Palestine is fairly cut'n'dry. There are other issues of self-determination that are much more complicated than the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. As an example, the territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia, and the provisional Government of Kosovo, with an ethnic-Albanian population that wishes to exercise self-determination.

You act as if some strange political magic has occurred regarding the "former territory under the Mandate" in the establishment of Israel and the quasi-government of the State of Palestine.

In the late 19th Century, just prior to the Great War, Lord Salisbury said:

"it was a time when territorial boundaries were being drawn across the world with little or no regard for natural or cultural boundaries. These boundaries were designed to reinforce an international system of --- absolute sovereignty --- of the state in which boundaries were derived from geo-military occupation of space as determined by the consenting colonial powers. More than a century later, many of these territorial boundaries remain as they were drawn, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred to the international system and the significant challenges that have been made to the concept of sovereignty with precise boundaries. Yet, these territorial boundaries and the ideas that were behind them, still form the foundations for the present international legal system."
​

In Lord Salisbury's day (former British Prime Minister - Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury), indeed - in the day that most of the political powers --- in the time of the Great War and the division of the Ottoman Empire --- geo-military occupation and control of the territory was the principle for which sovereignty and rule was extended. This is similarly reinforced in a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

It is only the illiterate that try to apply the concepts, values and changes of the 21st Century to the decisions and practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. It would be like trying to criticize Sir Isaac Newton work on Gravity, for not applying the concepts of Einstein's Space-Time.

(THE NON-APPLICABILITY of NSGT DESIGNATION)

The prediction of the establishment of a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) would have been applicable except for the fact that only hours after the termination of the Mandate, the Arab League forcibly entered the territory; and the War of Independence ensued. By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League. There was no NSGT; and it is a question as to whether the was any territory that would have been a separate legal entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous.

Indeed, a non self governing territory and still a legal entity.

Are you implying that the mandate was Palestine and when the Mandate left Palestine just went poof?

There are some obvious question that go right over the heads of Israel supporters. You don't know what they are.

(COMMENT)

On the termination of the Mandate, midnight 14/15 May 1948, (near) simultaneously (given leeway with the technology of the day), the provisional government, in accordance with the General Assembly Steps Preparatory to Independence, announced its independence. And for a matter of hours, prior to the illegal invasion by the Arab League, the territory, less the newly created Jewish State of Israel, became a legal entity known as the "Former Territory under the Mandate."

That is how thing were done back then and STILL are how thing are done today. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Former Soviet Union" (FSU) after the Collapse of the Soviet Union and before the development of the Russian Federation and breakaway Republics. Similarly, I'm sure you've heard of the "Former Yugoslavia" (Territory of the Former Yugoslavia) before the collapse and subsequent fragmentation into the socialist republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. And there are still two territories we call "autonomous provinces" that remain separate from the remainder of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina).

As you may or may not know, as territorial issues go, the Palestine is fairly cut'n'dry. There are other issues of self-determination that are much more complicated than the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. As an example, the territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia, and the provisional Government of Kosovo, with an ethnic-Albanian population that wishes to exercise self-determination.

You act as if some strange political magic has occurred regarding the "former territory under the Mandate" in the establishment of Israel and the quasi-government of the State of Palestine.

In the late 19th Century, just prior to the Great War, Lord Salisbury said:

"it was a time when territorial boundaries were being drawn across the world with little or no regard for natural or cultural boundaries. These boundaries were designed to reinforce an international system of --- absolute sovereignty --- of the state in which boundaries were derived from geo-military occupation of space as determined by the consenting colonial powers. More than a century later, many of these territorial boundaries remain as they were drawn, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred to the international system and the significant challenges that have been made to the concept of sovereignty with precise boundaries. Yet, these territorial boundaries and the ideas that were behind them, still form the foundations for the present international legal system."
​

In Lord Salisbury's day (former British Prime Minister - Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury), indeed - in the day that most of the political powers --- in the time of the Great War and the division of the Ottoman Empire --- geo-military occupation and control of the territory was the principle for which sovereignty and rule was extended. This is similarly reinforced in a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

It is only the illiterate that try to apply the concepts, values and changes of the 21st Century to the decisions and practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. It would be like trying to criticize Sir Isaac Newton work on Gravity, for not applying the concepts of Einstein's Space-Time.

(THE NON-APPLICABILITY of NSGT DESIGNATION)

The prediction of the establishment of a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) would have been applicable except for the fact that only hours after the termination of the Mandate, the Arab League forcibly entered the territory; and the War of Independence ensued. By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League. There was no NSGT; and it is a question as to whether the was any territory that would have been a separate legal entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

By the time of the cease-fire and armistice arrangements, there was no territory that was not under the control of the State of Israel or the Arab League.​

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[81]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Occupation does not change a state's legal status.

And the state in this case being Israel as Palestine was never a state, nation or country until 1988 as spelt out in your link. So the occupation of Israel by the arab muslims does not alter the legal status of the Jewish NATIONal home and the right of the Jews to claim Jerusalm and the west bank as their lands.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you can take the view, any way you want.

Indeed, you people always shovel Israeli shit without refuting the issues.

(COMMENT)

Article 22 talks about "certain communities." It does not say "all communities." It certainly does not promise the Arabs Palestinians anything, as it does not mention "Palestine" (or Transjordan) at all; nor are the provisions of the Covenant applicable to the Arab, as they were not a party to the Covenant.

Actually, the boundaries are those as determined by the Allied Powers and not some facet of the Arab Community, the Arab Higher Committee, or the Arab League.

The Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) indicated that the British as the Mandatory, was the effective Government of Palestine, and not some unidentified Arab Authority with no capacity to settle the debt in question before the court. Under what foolishness, do you suppose the PICJ would be if it ruled in favor of the plaintiff --- and then ordered a non-existent government to pay damages. No, you have it wrong. The successor government to the Ottoman Authorities was the Mandatory assigned by the Allied Powers.

There is little doubt, that in a WAR that was initiated by the Arab Community in 1948, and perpetuated until this day (nearly 7 decades later) that there are probably some legitimate Arab-Palestinian claims to put forward toward the Jewish State of Israel. But let there be no mistake, Israel is not going to agree to any settlement proffered by the Arab Palestinians that would ultimately spell the destruction of the Jewish National Home. And in not recognizing that, the Arab Palestinians are merely indefinitely extending the conflict into the future. Lacking any alternative (other than political and cultural suicide) the Israelis will simply maintain the status quo, and gradually develop the :Area "C" territory until the situation become untenable.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is little doubt, that in a WAR that was initiated by the Arab Community in 1948,​

And where, exactly, did the Arabs enter Israel to start this war?

As soon as they entered into the mandate of Palestine they entered land designated by the LoN as the Jewish national HOME. The arab muslims/Palestinians had refused to have any dealings with the UN in regards to the land and so had lost the right to declare it as theirs. In 1988 the UN should have kicked out their declaration and told them to get of Jewish lands. You cant turn down a car on offer today at $10k and hope to go back 70 years later and get the same deal.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

What, it that your new word for the "quarter" --- "dispossession?"

You can try to apply todays idea of "dispossession" to the decisions made a 100 years ago; but, it will not change a thing.

Rocco the neocolonialist just keeps on spewing justifications for the dispossession of the native people by invading colonists.

It is amazing that there are still people that support colonization and dispossession of native inhabitants by Europeans.

(COMMENT)

You can pretend all you want that the Jewish Immigrants attacked the British Mandatory that encouraged immigration in a "violent entry of a force from one state into the territory of another state for purposes that may be political and military, i.e. strategic, of merely tactical." (Page 61, ICRC Dictionary of the International Law of Armed Conflict) But at the end of the day, it will be recognized that it is nothing more than unnecessary sensationalization for sympathy.

Telling it like it is, is not the same as a justification describing an invariable outcome. Anyone that think that the Israelis are just going to capitulate to the Arab Palestinians just because they think the law was unfair to them a century ago, is barking up the wrong tree.

The Arab Palestinian leaders can hold back the progress and development of their people for as long as they want. It will not make that much difference to the Israelis. The priority is the defense, protection, security and preservation (DPSP) for the Jewish National Home. No matter what the whining and complaining of the Arab Palestinian, the DPSP will still be the principle objective of the Israeli.

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome. The DPSP would still be the imperative.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome.​

They didn't have to. Palestine was already under military occupation by allied forces.

Correct as once again the arab muslims initiated a war they could not hope to win, and the price of that loss was all their lands were forfeit and to be garrisoned by a foreign militaryuntil a later date. How is it that the Palestinians did not demand a state until after the 1967 war that they started and Israel won ?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

What, it that your new word for the "quarter" --- "dispossession?"

You can try to apply todays idea of "dispossession" to the decisions made a 100 years ago; but, it will not change a thing.

Rocco the neocolonialist just keeps on spewing justifications for the dispossession of the native people by invading colonists.

It is amazing that there are still people that support colonization and dispossession of native inhabitants by Europeans.

(COMMENT)

You can pretend all you want that the Jewish Immigrants attacked the British Mandatory that encouraged immigration in a "violent entry of a force from one state into the territory of another state for purposes that may be political and military, i.e. strategic, of merely tactical." (Page 61, ICRC Dictionary of the International Law of Armed Conflict) But at the end of the day, it will be recognized that it is nothing more than unnecessary sensationalization for sympathy.

Telling it like it is, is not the same as a justification describing an invariable outcome. Anyone that think that the Israelis are just going to capitulate to the Arab Palestinians just because they think the law was unfair to them a century ago, is barking up the wrong tree.

The Arab Palestinian leaders can hold back the progress and development of their people for as long as they want. It will not make that much difference to the Israelis. The priority is the defense, protection, security and preservation (DPSP) for the Jewish National Home. No matter what the whining and complaining of the Arab Palestinian, the DPSP will still be the principle objective of the Israeli.

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome. The DPSP would still be the imperative.

Most Respectfully,
R

The priority is the defense, protection, security and preservation (DPSP) for the Jewish National Home.​

Israel needs to defend its colonial project.

So what foreign lands has Israel colonised then, their own legally acquired lands cant be colonised by them only by non Israeli's. JUST WHERE IS THIS ALLEGED ISRAELI COLONIAL PROJECT ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

this is 100% true.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[81]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Occupation does not change a state's legal status.

(COMMENT)

But remember. There was no Palestinian State. The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.
​

The Stimson Doctine applies to a country that was once self-governing and sovereign, that was completely overrun by a hostile opponent. It does not apply to a territory was was non-self-governing to start with and effectively taken over by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Article 2(4) of the Charter is the applicable Law (an echelon above American Doctrine).

Most Respectfully,
R

At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

LINK ? as the occupiers were the arab muslims in reality

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly,

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome.

They didn't have to. Palestine was already under military occupation by allied forces.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants did not make an invasion. The immigration was facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all rights and title.

For some reason, you Arab Palestinians are desperately trying to make some foundation that there was either:

• Some express promise of sovereignty and independence made to a specific aspect of Arab;
• There was some previous Arab government beyond that of the Ottoman Empire that exercised Arab Sovereignty.
​

The Arab Palestinian has no previous claim to the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish Immigrants did not make an invasion.​

Yes they did. They mooched Britain's military to cover for them.

LINK ?

Remember that the British were already there and they were under orders from the LoN. They were anti semitic and did everything in their power to disenfranchise the Jews rights to the land granted by the LoN. It was the arab muslims that mooched Britain's military and non military to cover for them, that is why so many entered Palestine illegally.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly,

Even if it were the case that every single allegation made by the Arab Palestinian was true (a highly unlikely hypothetical), and the Jewish People boarded landing craft and hit the beaches, storming the ramparts, and driving ever Arab out of the region, that would not change the outcome.

They didn't have to. Palestine was already under military occupation by allied forces.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants did not make an invasion. The immigration was facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all rights and title.

For some reason, you Arab Palestinians are desperately trying to make some foundation that there was either:

• Some express promise of sovereignty and independence made to a specific aspect of Arab;
• There was some previous Arab government beyond that of the Ottoman Empire that exercised Arab Sovereignty.
​

The Arab Palestinian has no previous claim to the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh, to the contrary. Palestine is a successor state defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the legal citizens according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and domestic law. The Palestinians are the people of the place with all of the rights of "a people" in a defined territory.

LINK ? and it must state that Palestine was a successor state defined by international borders.

What international law was that then ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

No matter!

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful. There were no areas under the sovereign control of the Israelis that were in conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that Israel's occupation of Palestine was peaceful?

How can they occupy what is theirs under international law, it was the arab muslim occupation that was far from peaceful

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

this is 100% true.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[81]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Occupation does not change a state's legal status.

(COMMENT)

But remember. There was no Palestinian State. The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.
​

The Stimson Doctine applies to a country that was once self-governing and sovereign, that was completely overrun by a hostile opponent. It does not apply to a territory was was non-self-governing to start with and effectively taken over by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Article 2(4) of the Charter is the applicable Law (an echelon above American Doctrine).

Most Respectfully,
R

At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

LINK ? as the occupiers were the arab muslims in reality

Link? to you as well.

I don't have a link. It is just something I read off of one of Rocco's posts. That is why I asked him to clarify that point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

No! You need to read it again.

No matter!

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful. There were no areas under the sovereign control of the Israelis that were in conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that Israel's occupation of Palestine was peaceful?

(COMMENT)

In the 1949 Armistice, Israel was NOT one of the occupying powers.

• Jordan occupied the West Bank.
• Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
​

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful.

There was no area within Israeli sovereignty that was under an insurgency or civil war conditions. It was al on the Arab League side of the Armistice Line derived from the FEBA.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the 1949 Armistice, Israel was NOT one of the occupying powers.

• Jordan occupied the West Bank.
• Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.​

I cannot find any difference between Jordan's occupation, Egypt's occupation, and Israel's occupation of Palestine in the armistice agreements. The wording seems the same for all three.

Perhaps you could quote a passage that would say that Israel was not one of the occupying powers.

Thanks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

No! You need to read it again.

No matter!

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful. There were no areas under the sovereign control of the Israelis that were in conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that Israel's occupation of Palestine was peaceful?

(COMMENT)

In the 1949 Armistice, Israel was NOT one of the occupying powers.

• Jordan occupied the West Bank.
• Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
​

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful.

There was no area within Israeli sovereignty that was under an insurgency or civil war conditions. It was al on the Arab League side of the Armistice Line derived from the FEBA.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not true.

The Palestinians in Israeli controlled territory were remove from their homes and were herded into military controlled areas under armed guards. The Jews, of course, had the freedom to move freely in the territory.

Israel whined constantly about "insurgents" (Palestinians attempting to go back to their homes and armed groups attacking the occupation.) from 1948 to 1967. These attacks vary in intensity but continue to today.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

this is 100% true.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[81]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Occupation does not change a state's legal status.

(COMMENT)

But remember. There was no Palestinian State. The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.
​

The Stimson Doctine applies to a country that was once self-governing and sovereign, that was completely overrun by a hostile opponent. It does not apply to a territory was was non-self-governing to start with and effectively taken over by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Article 2(4) of the Charter is the applicable Law (an echelon above American Doctrine).

Most Respectfully,
R

At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

LINK ? as the occupiers were the arab muslims in reality

Link? to you as well.

I don't have a link. It is just something I read off of one of Rocco's posts. That is why I asked him to clarify that point.

You mean you cherry picked and manipulated and passed as your view

Mandate of Palestine that says the land is for the Jewish national home not the arab muslim terrorist state of palestine

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

No! You need to read it again.

No matter!

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (British). At the time of the Armistice, two requirements prevailed:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius --- "nobody's land")
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

​

Didn't it also say that the occupation must be peaceful?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful. There were no areas under the sovereign control of the Israelis that were in conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that Israel's occupation of Palestine was peaceful?

(COMMENT)

In the 1949 Armistice, Israel was NOT one of the occupying powers.

• Jordan occupied the West Bank.
• Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
​

The Armistice shows that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab League. The Arab Palestinians actually to not mount a belligerent opposition then. So it was peaceful.

There was no area within Israeli sovereignty that was under an insurgency or civil war conditions. It was al on the Arab League side of the Armistice Line derived from the FEBA.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the 1949 Armistice, Israel was NOT one of the occupying powers.

• Jordan occupied the West Bank.
• Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.​

I cannot find any difference between Jordan's occupation, Egypt's occupation, and Israel's occupation of Palestine in the armistice agreements. The wording seems the same for all three.

Perhaps you could quote a passage that would say that Israel was not one of the occupying powers.

Thanks.

What Israeli occupation of palestrine, it was their land under International law. So how was it in an armistice agreement LINK ?

Perhaps you should quote a passage that says it was ?