Boycott Israel

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have made these claims, yet have been unable to provide and evidence that can be evaluated and questioned.

√ I have provided independent (of Israel) documentation (Memorandum "A") that defined the territory as a "legal entity;" and that as of 25 February 1948 "Palestine" was a "legal entity" and "not a sovereign state."

Defined by the same people who prevented Palestinian self-government for three decades. When Britain changed from military occupation to a Mandate, for them, it was merely a name change. They still ruled Palestine with military force. And, none of the provisions in article 22 of the LoN Covenant were followed.

At that time Britain was handing Palestine over to be a trust territory of the UN. It was a non-self-governing territory. The UN dropped the ball and that transfer never happened.

Palestine was considered a state all during the Mandate period. A LoN arbitration found that Transjordan and Palestine were newly created states according to post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

First, Article 22 wassnever ment as an obligation to the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were were, at the time, the constituantpopulation within the Occupied Enemy Territory.

Second, within Article 22, there was the embedded: "principle of tutelage" The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine; but by 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government; which the Arab Palestinians declined.

Third, within Article 22, the threshold was established "until such time as they are able to stand alone." Not only did the Arab Palestinians not meet that threshold then, but there is a question as to whether they are demonstrating now if they have shown to be a "peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter."​

The Arab Palestinians lost their recognition as a peace-loving entity when "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman, and child." (February 1948 even before Israel declared Independence and the Mandate was still applicable.)

REMEMBER: Palestinian Authority Official Threatens to Obliterate all of Israel (By Avi Abelow October 16, 2019)


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have made these claims, yet have been unable to provide and evidence that can be evaluated and questioned.

√ I have provided independent (of Israel) documentation (Memorandum "A") that defined the territory as a "legal entity;" and that as of 25 February 1948 "Palestine" was a "legal entity" and "not a sovereign state."

Defined by the same people who prevented Palestinian self-government for three decades. When Britain changed from military occupation to a Mandate, for them, it was merely a name change. They still ruled Palestine with military force. And, none of the provisions in article 22 of the LoN Covenant were followed.

At that time Britain was handing Palestine over to be a trust territory of the UN. It was a non-self-governing territory. The UN dropped the ball and that transfer never happened.

Palestine was considered a state all during the Mandate period. A LoN arbitration found that Transjordan and Palestine were newly created states according to post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

First, Article 22 wassnever ment as an obligation to the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were were, at the time, the constituantpopulation within the Occupied Enemy Territory.

Second, within Article 22, there was the embedded: "principle of tutelage" The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine; but by 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government; which the Arab Palestinians declined.

Third, within Article 22, the threshold was established "until such time as they are able to stand alone." Not only did the Arab Palestinians not meet that threshold then, but there is a question as to whether they are demonstrating now if they have shown to be a "peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter."​

The Arab Palestinians lost their recognition as a peace-loving entity when "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman, and child." (February 1948 even before Israel declared Independence and the Mandate was still applicable.)

REMEMBER: Palestinian Authority Official Threatens to Obliterate all of Israel (By Avi Abelow October 16, 2019)


Most Respectfully,
R

First, Article 22 wassnever ment as an obligation to the Arab Palestinians.

The Mandate was to render administrative assist and advise in the best interest of the natives. That never happened.

The Arab Palestinians were were, at the time, the constituantpopulation within the Occupied Enemy Territory.

At that time Palestine was not Occupied Enemy Territory.

Second, within Article 22, there was the embedded: "principle of tutelage" The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine; but by 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government; which the Arab Palestinians declined.

Every offer to the Palestinians was to sign onto being the subordinate class of a foreign settler colonial project. Of course they rejected that.

Third, within Article 22, the threshold was established "until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Every attempt at establishing self governance, Britain would crush. The leaders were in prison, exiled, or killed.

The Arab Palestinians lost their recognition as a peace-loving entity when "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

Link?

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

 

[Hollie]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

There was no "country of Pal'istan".

Your dwelling on an imaginary historical (rather, "hystetical") invention of a "country" that never existed is kinda' creepy.

Country of "Pal'istan"?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

 

[Shusha]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

On the contrary, wouldn't you argue there is a legal obligation for States to refrain from repressing self-determination of peoples and their right to sovereignty and self-government?

I mean, that IS the entire basis for Palestinian national independence, isn't it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

There was no "country of Pal'istan".

Your dwelling on an imaginary historical (rather, "hystetical") invention of a "country" that never existed is kinda' creepy.

Country of "Pal'istan"?

Link?

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[Shusha]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

On the contrary, wouldn't you argue there is a legal obligation for States to refrain from repressing self-determination of peoples and their right to sovereignty and self-government?

I mean, that IS the entire basis for Palestinian national independence, isn't it?

What's so funny P F Tinmore?

I'm thinking the funny button is your code word for, "I have no idea how to address this ... so."

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

On the contrary, wouldn't you argue there is a legal obligation for States to refrain from repressing self-determination of peoples and their right to sovereignty and self-government?

I mean, that IS the entire basis for Palestinian national independence, isn't it?

What's so funny P F Tinmore?

I'm thinking the funny button is your code word for, "I have no idea how to address this ... so."

No! Your pretzel logic is a hoot.

 

[Hollie]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

There was no "country of Pal'istan".

Your dwelling on an imaginary historical (rather, "hystetical") invention of a "country" that never existed is kinda' creepy.

Country of "Pal'istan"?

Link?

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Your usual sidestep.

It's comical to watch you Islamo-tap dance around your false claims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

There was no "country of Pal'istan".

Your dwelling on an imaginary historical (rather, "hystetical") invention of a "country" that never existed is kinda' creepy.

Country of "Pal'istan"?

Link?

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Your usual sidestep.

It's comical to watch you Islamo-tap dance around your false claims.

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 succession
A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[122] Judge Higgins explained that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State."[123]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians were, at the time, the constituent population within the Occupied Enemy Territory.

At that time Palestine was not Occupied Enemy Territory.

(COMMENT)

OH knock it off. At any time in the 1920s and 1930s, the Arab Palestinians were either the constituent population within the Occupied Enemy Territory; former enemy operatives; or the first generation of large scale and coordinated Jihadist activity against the British Administration and Jewish Agency Activities (ie Izz ad-Din al-Qassam).

Second, within Article 22, there was the embedded: "principle of tutelage" The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine; but by 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government; which the Arab Palestinians declined.

Every offer to the Palestinians was to sign onto being the subordinate class of a foreign settler colonial project. Of course they rejected that.

(COMMENT)

Failure, on the part of the Arab Palestinians, to cooperate changes the expectation of a positive outcome for the Arab Palestinians. They shot themselves in the foot.

Third, within Article 22, the threshold was established "until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Every attempt at establishing self governance, Britain would crush. The leaders were in prison, exiled, or killed.

(COMMENT)

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.

The Arab Palestinians lost their recognition as a peace-loving entity when "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

Link?
There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

(COMMENT)

It was not their country to make any decision about it. The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in self-governing institutions.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

There was no "country of Pal'istan".

Your dwelling on an imaginary historical (rather, "hystetical") invention of a "country" that never existed is kinda' creepy.

Country of "Pal'istan"?

Link?

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Your usual sidestep.

It's comical to watch you Islamo-tap dance around your false claims.

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 succession
A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[122] Judge Higgins explained that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State."[123]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

As usual, your nonsense claim to the Treaty of Lausanne inventing a “country of Pal’istan” (Where Dreams Come True) is shown to be an absurdity.

 

[Hollie]

 

[Hollie]

 

[Shusha]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

On the contrary, wouldn't you argue there is a legal obligation for States to refrain from repressing self-determination of peoples and their right to sovereignty and self-government?

I mean, that IS the entire basis for Palestinian national independence, isn't it?

What's so funny P F Tinmore?

I'm thinking the funny button is your code word for, "I have no idea how to address this ... so."

No! Your pretzel logic is a hoot.

Yeah, yeah. And you claim self-determination is an inherent right for all peoples. Oh except the Jewish people. Because . ... JOOOOS.

You either believe self-determination is a right or you do not. You can't have it both ways.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I haven't seen any affiliation between so called terrorist groups and BDS groups. Where are they or is Israel just shoveling shit?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

On the contrary, wouldn't you argue there is a legal obligation for States to refrain from repressing self-determination of peoples and their right to sovereignty and self-government?

I mean, that IS the entire basis for Palestinian national independence, isn't it?

What's so funny P F Tinmore?

I'm thinking the funny button is your code word for, "I have no idea how to address this ... so."

No! Your pretzel logic is a hoot.

Yeah, yeah. And you claim self-determination is an inherent right for all peoples. Oh except the Jewish people. Because . ... JOOOOS.

You either believe self-determination is a right or you do not. You can't have it both ways.

You clearly do not understand self determination.

 

[Hollie]

I haven't seen any affiliation between so called terrorist groups and BDS groups. Where are they or is Israel just shoveling shit?

Indeed, your being in denial is predictable.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians were, at the time, the constituent population within the Occupied Enemy Territory.

At that time Palestine was not Occupied Enemy Territory.

(COMMENT)

OH knock it off. At any time in the 1920s and 1930s, the Arab Palestinians were either the constituent population within the Occupied Enemy Territory; former enemy operatives; or the first generation of large scale and coordinated Jihadist activity against the British Administration and Jewish Agency Activities (ie Izz ad-Din al-Qassam).

Second, within Article 22, there was the embedded: "principle of tutelage" The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine; but by 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government; which the Arab Palestinians declined.

Every offer to the Palestinians was to sign onto being the subordinate class of a foreign settler colonial project. Of course they rejected that.

(COMMENT)

Failure, on the part of the Arab Palestinians, to cooperate changes the expectation of a positive outcome for the Arab Palestinians. They shot themselves in the foot.

Third, within Article 22, the threshold was established "until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Every attempt at establishing self governance, Britain would crush. The leaders were in prison, exiled, or killed.

(COMMENT)

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.

The Arab Palestinians lost their recognition as a peace-loving entity when "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

Link?
There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

(COMMENT)

It was not their country to make any decision about it. The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in self-governing institutions.



Most Respectfully,
R

It was not their country to make any decision about it.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians were, at the time, the constituent population within the Occupied Enemy Territory.

At that time Palestine was not Occupied Enemy Territory.

(COMMENT)

OH knock it off. At any time in the 1920s and 1930s, the Arab Palestinians were either the constituent population within the Occupied Enemy Territory; former enemy operatives; or the first generation of large scale and coordinated Jihadist activity against the British Administration and Jewish Agency Activities (ie Izz ad-Din al-Qassam).

Second, within Article 22, there was the embedded: "principle of tutelage" The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine; but by 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government; which the Arab Palestinians declined.

Every offer to the Palestinians was to sign onto being the subordinate class of a foreign settler colonial project. Of course they rejected that.

(COMMENT)

Failure, on the part of the Arab Palestinians, to cooperate changes the expectation of a positive outcome for the Arab Palestinians. They shot themselves in the foot.

Third, within Article 22, the threshold was established "until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Every attempt at establishing self governance, Britain would crush. The leaders were in prison, exiled, or killed.

(COMMENT)

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.

The Arab Palestinians lost their recognition as a peace-loving entity when "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

Link?
There was no legal obligation for the Palestinians to partition their country.

(COMMENT)

It was not their country to make any decision about it. The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in self-governing institutions.



Most Respectfully,
R

It was not their country to make any decision about it.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

You spam many threads with that slogan because you’re unable to respond with a coherent comment.