Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

Why are the legally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan false?

Who has the authority to negotiate Palestine's borders?

 

[Sixties Fan]

A representative of the International Olympic Committee said Tuesday that it is “monitoring” reports that two judokas forfeited their matches rather than face an Israeli opponent, and vowed to “take all necessary measures” against the athletes.

Sudan’s Mohamed Abdalrasool failed to appear at his slated competition against Israeli judoka Tohar Butbul in the men’s 73-kg division on Monday, without providing a reason. On Saturday, Algerian judoka Fethi Nourine pulled out of the contest to avoid facing Butbul, citing his support for the Palestinian cause.

“Obviously the IOC is always concerned in these cases and is monitoring it very closely,” International Olympic Committee director of solidarity James Macleod told a media briefing in Tokyo on Tuesday. “Clearly if there are flagrant abuses of the Olympic charter, the IOC will take all necessary measures in that respect.”

(full article online)

International Olympic Committee ‘concerned’ by forfeits to avoid Israeli judoka

IOC director of solidarity James Macleod says committee 'will adopt a strict position' on violations of the Olympic charter

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who has the authority to negotiate Palestine's borders?

Imaginary country, so imaginary authorities.

Unlike Israel, which has real borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Imaginary country, so imaginary authorities.

Unlike Israel, which has real borders.

So, who is negotiating borders now?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Imaginary country, so imaginary authorities.

Unlike Israel, which has real borders.

Todd, could you start a thread on the borders between Israel and its neighbors, please. Thanks.

 

[rylah]

Who has the authority to negotiate Palestine's borders?

International law vests that with the Jewish Nation.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Colonialism and Aggression
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are under the impression that the intent of the Allied Powers in 1920 would NOT be interpreted the same way as 100 years late.

"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."​

Israel's smoke and mirrors about its borders.

The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

Israel gained recognition in 1948 by accepting the UN Partition borders of 1947, but has negated those borders since. But any partition of the land must reflect that division…

mondoweiss.net

This is key.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

(TRANSFER OF INTENT INTO ACTION THROUGH THE MANDATE)

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

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

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory Power (UK) did not consider that any decision had declared the permanent boundary for any self-governing and independent state within the territory except that of Transjordan (1946 Treaty). And this was made clear in the Memorandum written in 1948 on the meaning of the termination of the Mandate:

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.​

No matter what decision document you may be interpreting that was written, the UK (the last of the Great War Principle Allied Powers) set the conditions for the remainder of the territory under the Mandate, will not be immediately self-governing. SO! No matter what you might bring up prior to the termination, at the end of the termination (15 MAY 1948), → there was No Such State as Palestine.

On the termination, the State of Israel was created under the authority of "Self-Determination" and began to administer its territorial integrity. The Arab Population did not take any such measure. In fact, the Arab Palestinians made it abundantly clear that they would NOT cooperate with the UN Palestine Commission. "The following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January 1948:

• “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

As a result, the Commission helped the "National Council for the Jewish State" to establish self-governing institutions within the territory formally under the mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

International law vests that with the Jewish Nation.

Link?

 

[rylah]

Settler colonialism is well defined in academic circles. It has yet to find its way into international law. However, most of the tenets of settler colonialism are already addressed by international law.

• Settler colonialism is inherently aggressive. People do not get colonized voluntarily. It requires military force.
• Land theft/conquest violate the right to territorial integrity.
• Self determination and sovereignty are violated.
• Apartheid is necessary to divide us from them, from the superior and the inferior.
• Ethnic cleansing remove the natives to be replaced by colonial settlers.

WCRC: Foucs: Palestine - 6. Is Israel A Settler Colonial State?​

In other words, you even admit that the need to change definitions to apply selectively,
is to compensate for lack of legal ground alone for the accusations to have standing.

And even with all that, you still resort to infantile manipulation in echo chambers,
because you believe the facts are on your side?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Colonialism and Aggression
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are under the impression that the intent of the Allied Powers in 1920 would NOT be interpreted the same way as 100 years late.

"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."​

(TRANSFER OF INTENT INTO ACTION THROUGH THE MANDATE)

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

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

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory Power (UK) did not consider that any decision had declared the permanent boundary for any self-governing and independent state within the territory except that of Transjordan (1946 Treaty). And this was made clear in the Memorandum written in 1948 on the meaning of the termination of the Mandate:

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.​

No matter what decision document you may be interpreting that was written, the UK (the last of the Great War Principle Allied Powers) set the conditions for the remainder of the territory under the Mandate, will not be immediately self-governing. SO! No matter what you might bring up prior to the termination, at the end of the termination (15 MAY 1948), → there was No Such State as Palestine.

On the termination, the State of Israel was created under the authority of "Self-Determination" and began to administer its territorial integrity. The Arab Population did not take any such measure. In fact, the Arab Palestinians made it abundantly clear that they would NOT cooperate with the UN Palestine Commission. "The following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January 1948:

• “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

As a result, the Commission helped the "National Council for the Jewish State" to establish self-governing institutions within the territory formally under the mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

How did the Mandate translate the homeland for the Jews

It wasn't a transfer of land. The Mandate had no land.

It wasn't a transfer of sovereignty. The Mandate had no sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Colonialism and Aggression
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: It really does matter anymore as to how the Powers interpreted the National Home. But in the A/RES/181 (II), it outlines the Jewish State. And that might have survived had the Arab League NOT jumped across the borders.

How did the Mandate translate the homeland for the Jews

It wasn't a transfer of land. The Mandate had no land.

It wasn't a transfer of sovereignty. The Mandate had no sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No one said anything about a transfer of Sovereignty. Sovereignty is a matter of "Self-Determination" and the establishment of "Territorial Integrity." TODAY that has evolved to be the current international recognized agreements:

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •​

​

◈ Golan Heights Law •​

​

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) •​

​

◈ Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I) (1993)​

​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

​

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo II) (1995).​

​

◈ Letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon (2000) •​

I recommend you look at what is applicable TODAY.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

How did the Mandate translate the homeland for the Jews

It wasn't a transfer of land. The Mandate had no land.

It wasn't a transfer of sovereignty. The Mandate had no sovereignty.

The letter of the law defines it re-constitution.
The Mandate was set on the basis of international law
that recognizes and vests all the above with the Jewish Nation.

Would you also claim that Indian sovereignty can't be transferred
to the land where your ass is parked, because you don't recognize the American authority?

 

[rylah]

Link?

The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20mandate%20for%20palestine.aspx

That's why any change of authority in the land
is legal function of Israeli sovereign choice alone.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20mandate%20for%20palestine.aspx

That's why any change of authority in the land
is legal function of Israeli sovereign choice alone.

Britain's version of a national home was different from the Zionist's. Britain was charged to create an independent state. Nothing was created but violence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Imaginary country, so imaginary authorities.

Unlike Israel, which has real borders.

Duck.

 

[rylah]

Britain's version of a national home was different from the Zionist's. Britain was charged to create an independent state. Nothing was created was violence.

That's the letter of the law, there's simply no other version.
Arab violence against local Jews was not the result,
but exactly the initial cause of Zionism.

So the main question remains,
does the law mention anyone else
in reference to national sovereignty?

(And now you start the usual Jihadi duck dance...)

 

[rylah]

 

[rylah]

Don't BDS-holes claim they're "for Jewish values"?

 

[rylah]

Algerian suspended from world judo for refusal to face Israeli at Olympics

International judo federation withdraws Fethi Nourine's accreditation after he pulls out of contest, says his actions are 'in total opposition to our philosophy'

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Colonialism and Aggression
※→ rylah, (P F Tinmore), et al,

BLUF: In the case of Israel and Jordan, national sovereignty was the outcome of the "Will of the People" (Self-Determination). It was not transferred from anywhere. The claim of sovereignty evaporater when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title."

There was nothing even remotely similar relative to the Arab Palestinians. The All Palestine Government (APG) did not meet the criteria behind the Montevideo Convention (1933). The APG was disbanded by its parent government in 1959.

That's the letter of the law, there's simply no other version.
Arab violence against local Jews was not the result,
but exactly the initial cause of Zionism.

So the main question remains,
does the law mention anyone else
in reference to national sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

On 15 May 1923 HM's Government formally recognized Emir Abdullah as the Head of the Emirate of Transjordan. The Mandate over Transjordan ended in March 1946 with the installation of the Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty (granting full independence). In 25 May 1946 the Transjordanian Parliament proclaimed Abdullah King (sovereignty made through self-determination by the people).

Something very similar happened with Israel. At the end of the day (15 May 1948), sovereignty for the Jewish State (Israel) was proclaimed by the National Council for the Jewish State (essentially the body acting as a Parliament of the people for the Provisional Government).

Most Respectfully,
R