Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.

It does make that point.

Rocco,

The subcommittee report that addressed the legality, authority etc. of the UN General Assembly to partition the land is another document prepared by a subcommittee created for that purpose. Title reproduced below. It is not directly accessible it must be downloaded as a pdf. It was reproduced probably via mimeogrpah so the quality is low but it is legible.

Distr.
UNRESTRICTED

A/AC.14/32
11 November 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

I only wanted to make the land ownership point in this case.

(COMMENT)

Port to .pdf Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 [link to .pdf]

And it is a valid point, but not one that effects the:

• Original intention of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
• The Article 22 requirement to be able to stand alone.
• The General Assembly evaluation on the UNSCOP Partition Plan Recommendation.

Of course, there is a lot in what was not said. This particular report was an ALL Muslim report.

Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee

1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.​

The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles expressed in the proposals submitted to the General Assembly by the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (documents A/317 and A/328, respectively) and the proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee by the delegation of Syria (document A/AC.14/22); and

2. To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations.”
​

And these insights were incorporated into the UNSCOP Recommendation.

Just to be fair, the main point that this UNSCOP Report tried to convey was that:

"It will be be seen that there is not a single sub-district in which the percentage of Jewish land ownership exceeds 39 per cent, and in nine out of the sixteen sub-districts, their percentage of ownership is less than 5 percent." (Bottom of Page 43)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

Palestinian land? For 700 years it was Ottoman land, then it became British land. There was never a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. As the UN records show, "Palestinian" is a relatively new phenomenon.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.

It does make that point.

Rocco,

The subcommittee report that addressed the legality, authority etc. of the UN General Assembly to partition the land is another document prepared by a subcommittee created for that purpose. Title reproduced below. It is not directly accessible it must be downloaded as a pdf. It was reproduced probably via mimeogrpah so the quality is low but it is legible.

Distr.
UNRESTRICTED

A/AC.14/32
11 November 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

I only wanted to make the land ownership point in this case.

(COMMENT)

Port to .pdf Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 [link to .pdf]

And it is a valid point, but not one that effects the:

• Original intention of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
• The Article 22 requirement to be able to stand alone.
• The General Assembly evaluation on the UNSCOP Partition Plan Recommendation.

Of course, there is a lot in what was not said. This particular report was an ALL Muslim report.

Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee

1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.​

The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles expressed in the proposals submitted to the General Assembly by the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (documents A/317 and A/328, respectively) and the proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee by the delegation of Syria (document A/AC.14/22); and

2. To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations.”
​

And these insights were incorporated into the UNSCOP Recommendation.

Just to be fair, the main point that this UNSCOP Report tried to convey was that:

"It will be be seen that there is not a single sub-district in which the percentage of Jewish land ownership exceeds 39 per cent, and in nine out of the sixteen sub-districts, their percentage of ownership is less than 5 percent." (Bottom of Page 43)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

Palestinian land? For 700 years it was Ottoman land, then it became British land. There was never a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. As the UN records show, "Palestinian" is a relatively new phenomenon.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

 

[Roudy]

So there was never a Palestinian state or people. It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition. At least we agree on something.

 

[Roudy]

pbel, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

The Partition Plan was the result of Colonialist/Imperial expression by the winners of WWll who fought for the control of the oilfields...They never had the right to impose except through political malfeasance and military power...

(COMMENT)

The disputed between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis pre-dates the discovery of the gas and oil fields in the greater Levant by half a century. The Allied Powers had no idea the field were in the region and did not have the technology to reach them 50 to 70 years ago even if they knew. In 1948 though the 1990's --- it was not about the gas and oil.

The Tamar Gas Field was initially discovered in 1999, and the Leviathan Gas Field was initially discovered in 2010. The Tamar Gas Field is located in Israel's exclusive economic zone, roughly 80 km (50 mi) west of Haifa in waters 1,700m (5,600 ft) deep. The Levant Gas Field is not quite as deep --- centered on location ≈ 130 km (81 mi) west of Haifa in waters 1,500m (4,900 ft) deep in the Levantine basin. In 3d Quarter of 2010, Lebanon submitted to the UN its official review and survey regarding the maritime border, with the conclusion that the Tamar and Leviathan gas fields to be outside Lebanese territory. However, current surveys indicate that the gas and oil fields extend all the way across the basin to the west --- off the coast of Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel --- including some potential for the State of Palestine (Gaza Strip).

That wrong will never be right unless the Palestinians and Arabs agree to it. That's what the Arabs see...That's why Jihadists are thriving, they want Western influence and politics to be gone.

(COMMENT)

The current political conditions between Israel and the associated regional Arab States (Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon) will be the first to license and profit from the discoveries. The Syrians and Palestinians don't have the political stability to capitalize on the exploratory license and drilling rights. The entire Leviathan Basin holds a mean approximation of 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and a mean approximation of 122 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas.

In March 2012 the Tamar Gas Field partners signed a 15-year, $14 billion deal with the Israel Electric Corporation to supply it with 42 billion cubic meters of natural gas. By March 2012, the consortium developing the Tamar Gas Fields had signed deals worth up to a total of $32 billion with six Israeli companies, committing up to 133 billion cubic meters.

As long as the Palestinians continue to prolong the peace process, the more they will loss in licensing and the greater the loss to the Palestinian development programs that will help it stand alone.

But again, the Israelis nor the Allied Powers or Mandatories, knew of the gas and oil fields. I know it is popular to blame greed and profitability on the woes that befall the virtual Palestinian victims. But it is not the case. The economic loss to the Palestinians will by the fault of the Palestinian self-inflicted wound; also a right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

As usual your words are lost in the forest:
US-Saudi mark 70 years of rocky alliance - Al-Monitor: the ...
www.al-monitor.com/.../american-saudi-arabia-alliance-anni...

• Cached

Al‑Monitor

Loading...

Feb 13, 2015 - Feb. 14 marks the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the US alliance with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On Feb. 14, 1945, President Franklin ...

And that's how they knew Isrsel was going to have gas fields 60 years later.

 

[theliq]

So there was never a Palestinian state or people. It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition. At least we agree on something.

In 1327,King Robert the Bruce declared that he wanted to be buried in PALESTINE,there has always been a PALESTINE and THERE ALWAYS WILL BE Roudy,much of the pro Jewish lobby on here try to declare that only Jews were in the Holy Land...this often happens when a group overthrows the indigenous population and create their on country...same with the Americans against the Native Indians,Australians against the Aborigines,Turkey against the Armenians .It is a justification to the interlopers for their behaviour.............steve...Roudy you should accept my posts as they are factual in content......there is always a reason why people act and behave the way they do............but in reality it is Guilt fundamentally.....Australia said Sorry to the Aboriginals for way they were treated....... some years ago......We admitted our terrible treatment.

Israel,Turkey and all,are still going through this process BUT ARE STILL DENIERS

 

[P F Tinmore]

So there was never a Palestinian state or people. It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition. At least we agree on something.

In 1327,King Robert the Bruce declared that he wanted to be buried in PALESTINE,there has always been a PALESTINE and THERE ALWAYS WILL BE Roudy,much of the pro Jewish lobby on here try to declare that only Jews were in the Holy Land...this often happens when a group overthrows the indigenous population and create their on country...same with the Americans against the Native Indians,Australians against the Aborigines,Turkey against the Armenians .It is a justification to the interlopers for their behaviour.............steve...Roudy you should accept my posts as they are factual in content......there is always a reason why people act and behave the way they do............but in reality it is Guilt fundamentally.....Australia said Sorry to the way they were treated some years ago......We admitted our terrible treatment.

Israel,Turkey and all,are still going through this process

And we have 750,000 refugees from "a land without people."

The Zionists have always been full of crap.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now we are getting closer.

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

(COMMENT)

In the greater sense, I agree. Ownership is not sovereignty. When did it become sovereign to the Arab Palestinian?

They did not get it from the Ottomans.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now we are getting closer.

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

(COMMENT)

In the greater sense, I agree. Ownership is not sovereignty. When did it become sovereign to the Arab Palestinian?

They did not get it from the Ottomans.

Most Respectfully,
R

From what I can tell they got the "right" to sovereignty when they were released from Ottoman rule in 1924. Due to illegal external interference, they have never been able to exercise their rights.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't delude yourself. That is not what is said at all.

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.

It does make that point.

Rocco,

The subcommittee report that addressed the legality, authority etc. of the UN General Assembly to partition the land is another document prepared by a subcommittee created for that purpose. Title reproduced below. It is not directly accessible it must be downloaded as a pdf. It was reproduced probably via mimeogrpah so the quality is low but it is legible.

Distr.
UNRESTRICTED

A/AC.14/32
11 November 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

I only wanted to make the land ownership point in this case.

(COMMENT)

Port to .pdf Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 [link to .pdf]

And it is a valid point, but not one that effects the:

• Original intention of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
• The Article 22 requirement to be able to stand alone.
• The General Assembly evaluation on the UNSCOP Partition Plan Recommendation.

Of course, there is a lot in what was not said. This particular report was an ALL Muslim report.

Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee

1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.​

The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles expressed in the proposals submitted to the General Assembly by the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (documents A/317 and A/328, respectively) and the proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee by the delegation of Syria (document A/AC.14/22); and

2. To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations.”
​

And these insights were incorporated into the UNSCOP Recommendation.

Just to be fair, the main point that this UNSCOP Report tried to convey was that:

"It will be be seen that there is not a single sub-district in which the percentage of Jewish land ownership exceeds 39 per cent, and in nine out of the sixteen sub-districts, their percentage of ownership is less than 5 percent." (Bottom of Page 43)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

Palestinian land? For 700 years it was Ottoman land, then it became British land. There was never a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. As the UN records show, "Palestinian" is a relatively new phenomenon.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

(COMMENT)

That is not a proper interpretation at all. All people needed an identity and a country to assume responsibility for them. The Nationality Law did that. It placed the Mandatory as the responsible government over the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. The Nationality was "Palestinian" (citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied). This very same logic was used in the territories to which the Mandates of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq applied.

Don't read more into it than is said. We are talking about sovereignty and independence. And you will not find anything, prior to 1988, that indicates that the people indigenous to the territory to which the Mandate applied were ever sovereign or independent. In fact, you find the exact opposite:

• 
  "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.
  

That is the description. Your interpretation is entirely incorrect.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.

It does make that point.

Rocco,

The subcommittee report that addressed the legality, authority etc. of the UN General Assembly to partition the land is another document prepared by a subcommittee created for that purpose. Title reproduced below. It is not directly accessible it must be downloaded as a pdf. It was reproduced probably via mimeogrpah so the quality is low but it is legible.

Distr.
UNRESTRICTED

A/AC.14/32
11 November 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

I only wanted to make the land ownership point in this case.

(COMMENT)

Port to .pdf Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 [link to .pdf]

And it is a valid point, but not one that effects the:

• Original intention of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
• The Article 22 requirement to be able to stand alone.
• The General Assembly evaluation on the UNSCOP Partition Plan Recommendation.

Of course, there is a lot in what was not said. This particular report was an ALL Muslim report.

Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee

1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.​

The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles expressed in the proposals submitted to the General Assembly by the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (documents A/317 and A/328, respectively) and the proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee by the delegation of Syria (document A/AC.14/22); and

2. To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations.”
​

And these insights were incorporated into the UNSCOP Recommendation.

Just to be fair, the main point that this UNSCOP Report tried to convey was that:

"It will be be seen that there is not a single sub-district in which the percentage of Jewish land ownership exceeds 39 per cent, and in nine out of the sixteen sub-districts, their percentage of ownership is less than 5 percent." (Bottom of Page 43)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

Palestinian land? For 700 years it was Ottoman land, then it became British land. There was never a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. As the UN records show, "Palestinian" is a relatively new phenomenon.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

No, the Mandatory Power fashioned an artificial legal construct as a convenient place to hang their hats, in addressing regional issues.

An artificial legal construct that was never self-governing nor self-aware as a polity, and which was swept aside by the events of 1948-1949.

If you object to that sweeping aside, feel free to invent a Time Machine and go back and reconfigure the future.

It's over.

And all that old shit doesn't matter one good goddamn any longer.

None of it.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't delude yourself. That is not what is said at all.

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.

It does make that point.

Rocco,

The subcommittee report that addressed the legality, authority etc. of the UN General Assembly to partition the land is another document prepared by a subcommittee created for that purpose. Title reproduced below. It is not directly accessible it must be downloaded as a pdf. It was reproduced probably via mimeogrpah so the quality is low but it is legible.

Distr.
UNRESTRICTED

A/AC.14/32
11 November 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

I only wanted to make the land ownership point in this case.

(COMMENT)

Port to .pdf Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 [link to .pdf]

And it is a valid point, but not one that effects the:

• Original intention of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
• The Article 22 requirement to be able to stand alone.
• The General Assembly evaluation on the UNSCOP Partition Plan Recommendation.

Of course, there is a lot in what was not said. This particular report was an ALL Muslim report.

Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee

1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.​

The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles expressed in the proposals submitted to the General Assembly by the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (documents A/317 and A/328, respectively) and the proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee by the delegation of Syria (document A/AC.14/22); and

2. To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations.”
​

And these insights were incorporated into the UNSCOP Recommendation.

Just to be fair, the main point that this UNSCOP Report tried to convey was that:

"It will be be seen that there is not a single sub-district in which the percentage of Jewish land ownership exceeds 39 per cent, and in nine out of the sixteen sub-districts, their percentage of ownership is less than 5 percent." (Bottom of Page 43)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

Palestinian land? For 700 years it was Ottoman land, then it became British land. There was never a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. As the UN records show, "Palestinian" is a relatively new phenomenon.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

(COMMENT)

That is not a proper interpretation at all. All people needed an identity and a country to assume responsibility for them. The Nationality Law did that. It placed the Mandatory as the responsible government over the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. The Nationality was "Palestinian" (citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied). This very same logic was used in the territories to which the Mandates of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq applied.

Don't read more into it than is said. We are talking about sovereignty and independence. And you will not find anything, prior to 1988, that indicates that the people indigenous to the territory to which the Mandate applied were ever sovereign or independent. In fact, you find the exact opposite:

• 
  "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.

That is the description. Your interpretation is entirely incorrect.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm afraid that you failed to read one of the key terms of Resolution 181.

"3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below."

It does not require any interpretation. Any other subsequent term(s), e.g. other requests of the U.N. within the Resolution do not "qualify" this first term. Even if in subsequent paragraphs the Resolution required the payment of monies or any other requirement, para. 3 is the defining paragraph.

A RES 181 II of 29 November 1947

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't delude yourself. That is not what is said at all.

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.

It does make that point.

Rocco,

The subcommittee report that addressed the legality, authority etc. of the UN General Assembly to partition the land is another document prepared by a subcommittee created for that purpose. Title reproduced below. It is not directly accessible it must be downloaded as a pdf. It was reproduced probably via mimeogrpah so the quality is low but it is legible.

Distr.
UNRESTRICTED

A/AC.14/32
11 November 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

I only wanted to make the land ownership point in this case.

(COMMENT)

Port to .pdf Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 [link to .pdf]

And it is a valid point, but not one that effects the:

• Original intention of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
• The Article 22 requirement to be able to stand alone.
• The General Assembly evaluation on the UNSCOP Partition Plan Recommendation.

Of course, there is a lot in what was not said. This particular report was an ALL Muslim report.

Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee

1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.​

The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles expressed in the proposals submitted to the General Assembly by the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (documents A/317 and A/328, respectively) and the proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee by the delegation of Syria (document A/AC.14/22); and

2. To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations.”
​

And these insights were incorporated into the UNSCOP Recommendation.

Just to be fair, the main point that this UNSCOP Report tried to convey was that:

"It will be be seen that there is not a single sub-district in which the percentage of Jewish land ownership exceeds 39 per cent, and in nine out of the sixteen sub-districts, their percentage of ownership is less than 5 percent." (Bottom of Page 43)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

Palestinian land? For 700 years it was Ottoman land, then it became British land. There was never a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. As the UN records show, "Palestinian" is a relatively new phenomenon.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

(COMMENT)

That is not a proper interpretation at all. All people needed an identity and a country to assume responsibility for them. The Nationality Law did that. It placed the Mandatory as the responsible government over the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. The Nationality was "Palestinian" (citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied). This very same logic was used in the territories to which the Mandates of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq applied.

Don't read more into it than is said. We are talking about sovereignty and independence. And you will not find anything, prior to 1988, that indicates that the people indigenous to the territory to which the Mandate applied were ever sovereign or independent. In fact, you find the exact opposite:

• 
  "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.

That is the description. Your interpretation is entirely incorrect.

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't read more into it than is said. We are talking about sovereignty and independence.​

Actually we are talking about the right to sovereignty and independence as subsequent UN resolutions have affirmed.

Palestine was born under foreign military occupation and that status remains to today. They have never had the opportunity to exercise their rights.

 

[Roudy]

So there was never a Palestinian state or people. It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition. At least we agree on something.

In 1327,King Robert the Bruce declared that he wanted to be buried in PALESTINE,there has always been a PALESTINE and THERE ALWAYS WILL BE Roudy,much of the pro Jewish lobby on here try to declare that only Jews were in the Holy Land...this often happens when a group overthrows the indigenous population and create their on country...same with the Americans against the Native Indians,Australians against the Aborigines,Turkey against the Armenians .It is a justification to the interlopers for their behaviour.............steve...Roudy you should accept my posts as they are factual in content......there is always a reason why people act and behave the way they do............but in reality it is Guilt fundamentally.....Australia said Sorry to the Aboriginals for way they were treated....... some years ago......We admitted our terrible treatment.

Israel,Turkey and all,are still going through this process BUT ARE STILL DENIERS

Come on Liq. Palestine was never a stste or sovereign entity. King Robert wanted to be buried there because it is considered Christian holy land.

 

[Roudy]

So there was never a Palestinian state or people. It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition. At least we agree on something.

In 1327,King Robert the Bruce declared that he wanted to be buried in PALESTINE,there has always been a PALESTINE and THERE ALWAYS WILL BE Roudy,much of the pro Jewish lobby on here try to declare that only Jews were in the Holy Land...this often happens when a group overthrows the indigenous population and create their on country...same with the Americans against the Native Indians,Australians against the Aborigines,Turkey against the Armenians .It is a justification to the interlopers for their behaviour.............steve...Roudy you should accept my posts as they are factual in content......there is always a reason why people act and behave the way they do............but in reality it is Guilt fundamentally.....Australia said Sorry to the way they were treated some years ago......We admitted our terrible treatment.

Israel,Turkey and all,are still going through this process

And we have 750,000 refugees from "a land without people."

The Zionists have always been full of crap.

Arab refugees from a war started by themselves.

 

[montelatici]

How can people in the process of being colonized (by people from another continent) be accused of "starting a war". The war started when the Europeans began settling Palestine with the intent to establish a state there.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't delude yourself. That is not what is said at all.

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.

It does make that point.

(COMMENT)

Port to .pdf Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 [link to .pdf]

And it is a valid point, but not one that effects the:

• Original intention of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
• The Article 22 requirement to be able to stand alone.
• The General Assembly evaluation on the UNSCOP Partition Plan Recommendation.

Of course, there is a lot in what was not said. This particular report was an ALL Muslim report.

Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee

1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.​

The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles expressed in the proposals submitted to the General Assembly by the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (documents A/317 and A/328, respectively) and the proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee by the delegation of Syria (document A/AC.14/22); and

2. To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations.”
​

And these insights were incorporated into the UNSCOP Recommendation.

Just to be fair, the main point that this UNSCOP Report tried to convey was that:

"It will be be seen that there is not a single sub-district in which the percentage of Jewish land ownership exceeds 39 per cent, and in nine out of the sixteen sub-districts, their percentage of ownership is less than 5 percent." (Bottom of Page 43)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

Palestinian land? For 700 years it was Ottoman land, then it became British land. There was never a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. As the UN records show, "Palestinian" is a relatively new phenomenon.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

(COMMENT)

That is not a proper interpretation at all. All people needed an identity and a country to assume responsibility for them. The Nationality Law did that. It placed the Mandatory as the responsible government over the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. The Nationality was "Palestinian" (citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied). This very same logic was used in the territories to which the Mandates of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq applied.

Don't read more into it than is said. We are talking about sovereignty and independence. And you will not find anything, prior to 1988, that indicates that the people indigenous to the territory to which the Mandate applied were ever sovereign or independent. In fact, you find the exact opposite:

• 
  "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.

That is the description. Your interpretation is entirely incorrect.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm afraid that you failed to read one of the key terms of Resolution 181.

"3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below."

It does not require any interpretation. Any other subsequent term(s), e.g. other requests of the U.N. within the Resolution do not "qualify" this first term. Even if in subsequent paragraphs the Resolution required the payment of monies or any other requirement, para. 3 is the defining paragraph.

A RES 181 II of 29 November 1947

Savage Arabs rejected 181 and attacked Israel.

Oh wait, they want a redo. Too late Mahmoud.

 

[montelatici]

The savages are those that invaded Palestine from Europe with the intent settle there and evict the local people. The Europeans attacked the local people. Those are just facts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So there was never a Palestinian state or people. It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition. At least we agree on something.

In 1327,King Robert the Bruce declared that he wanted to be buried in PALESTINE,there has always been a PALESTINE and THERE ALWAYS WILL BE Roudy,much of the pro Jewish lobby on here try to declare that only Jews were in the Holy Land...this often happens when a group overthrows the indigenous population and create their on country...same with the Americans against the Native Indians,Australians against the Aborigines,Turkey against the Armenians .It is a justification to the interlopers for their behaviour.............steve...Roudy you should accept my posts as they are factual in content......there is always a reason why people act and behave the way they do............but in reality it is Guilt fundamentally.....Australia said Sorry to the way they were treated some years ago......We admitted our terrible treatment.

Israel,Turkey and all,are still going through this process

And we have 750,000 refugees from "a land without people."

The Zionists have always been full of crap.

Arab refugees from a war started by themselves.

The Zionists went from Europe to Palestine so that the Palestinians could start a war with them?

You are a hoot.

 

[Roudy]

How can people in the process of being colonized (by people from another continent) be accused of "starting a war". The war started when the Europeans began settling Palestine with the intent to establish a state there.

Yada yada yada. The war started by your beloved Nazi mufti.

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

The Arabs made some very bad decisions, they thought the Jews would cave in to their usual savagery and thuggery.

Land was under Ottoman rule for 700 years and then British control. It wasn't up to the Arabs who were mostly invaders themselves.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, your notions are not quite accurate. You are trying to applied contemporary understanding to 1924 position. May I suggest that you look at the broader picture. Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne contradicts or alters the understanding in the Treaty of Sevres (1920). If anything, the expanded concessions further benefit the Allied Powers.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now we are getting closer.

Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

(COMMENT)

In the greater sense, I agree. Ownership is not sovereignty. When did it become sovereign to the Arab Palestinian?

They did not get it from the Ottomans.

Most Respectfully,
R

From what I can tell they got the "right" to sovereignty when they were released from Ottoman rule in 1924. Due to illegal external interference, they have never been able to exercise their rights.

(COMMENT)

First, the Middle Eastern territory was NOT "released from Ottoman rule in 1924." That is just when the replacement Treaty (written by the Allied Powers) was with Turkey (the successor government to the Ottoman Empire. As I've said many time before, the Ottoman relinquished their control in the Armistice of 1918.

The Armistice of Mudros, which was concluded on October 30, 1918, ended the hostilities in the Middle Eastern theatre of war between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies. It was signed by Rauf Bey, the Ottoman Minister of Marine, and the British Admiral Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe, on board Agamemnon in Mudros harbor on the Aegean island of Lemnos. The armistice was followed with occupation of Istanbul, the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, and the Treaty of Sèvres, although the latter was never ratified due to the Turkish victory at the War of Liberation.

"Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security."

5. Immediate demobilisation of the Turkish Army except for such troops as are required for surveillance of frontiers and for the maintenance of internal order (number of effectives and their disposition to be determined later by the Allies after consultation with the Turkish Government).

16. Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.​

The Idea of "illegal external interference" had not yet become an internationally recognized political concept (General Assembly Resolution 50/172 --- Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes.

State sovereignty
The notion concept of sovereignty refers to the three-fold capacity of a state, which is the "absolute supremacy over internal affairs within its territory, absolute right to govern its people, and freedom from any external interference in the above matters" (Wang, 2004: 473). So a state is sovereign if it has the ability to make and implement laws within its territory, and can function without any external power and assistance, and doesn't acknowledges any higher authority above itself in the world of independent states. From the above definition one can draw the conclusion that either a state can be sovereign or not, since sovereignty is defined as the absolute supremacy and right of the government in a given state.

Find out more from UK Essays here: The End Of The State Sovereignty Politics Essay​

The replacement to the Treaty of Sevres (1920) with the Ottomans --- being the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) with the Turks --- is some what tricky in terms of absolute law. Articles 38 through 44 (Section III --- Protection of Minorities) is where Turkey undertakes that the stipulations (Article 37) contained in Articles 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them. With the exception of Article 37, nothing in the totality of the remainder even remotely deals with the political concept of external interference.

ARTICLE 38.

The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to ali inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.

All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals.

Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order.​

ARTICLE 39.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities will enjoy the same civil and political rights as Moslems.

All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law.

Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.

No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings.

Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts.​

ARTICLE 40.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.​

ARTICLE 41.

As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.

In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational, religious, or charitable purposes.

The sums in question shall be paid to the qualified representatives of the establishments and institutions concerned.​

ARTICLE 42.

The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities.

These measures will be elaborated by special Commissions composed of representatives of the Turkish Government and of representatives of each of the minorities concerned in equal number. In case of divergence, the Turkish Government and the Council of the League of Nations will appoint in agreement an umpire chosen from amongst European lawyers.

The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities. All facilities and authorisation will be granted to the pious foundations, and to the religious and charitable institutions of the said minorities at present existing in Turkey, and the Turkish Government will not refuse, for the formation of new religious and charitable institu- tions, any of the necessary facilities which are guaranteed to other private institutions of that nature.​

ARTICLE 43.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest.

This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.​

ARTICLE 44.

Turkey agrees that, in so far as the preceding Articles of this Section affect non-Moslem nationals of Turkey, these provisions constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent to any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

Turkey agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

Turkey further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or of fact arising out of these Articles between the Turkish Government and any one of the other Signatory Powers or any other Power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Turkish Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.​

Key in this set of Articles is the protection of Minorities (particularly "non-Muslim). In reading Article 44, you will note that the majority of the Council of the League of Nations plays a very specific roll. But these minority protection Articles were unique in there time. The Treaty makes the general understanding clear:

ARTICLE 16.​

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

Nothing in the Treaty sets the tone for the "right" to sovereignty as you suggest; the sovereignty went as indicated with none to the indigenous population of the Middle East. The Ottomans relinquished the sovereignty to the Allied Power in 1918 and the Turks relinquished their control in Article 16, as delimited by Article 37 (invoking as Law Articles 38 through 44).

Most Respectfully,
R