Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[montelatici]

That's if the locals were evicted, which they weren't. And if the locals were locals and not Arab colonizers and invaders, sheesh.

The locals were evicted. Making irrational claims do not help your case at all.

Link?

If the non-Jews had not been evicted there would not be Palestinian refugee camps. No link is required.

 

[Roudy]

That's if the locals were evicted, which they weren't. And if the locals were locals and not Arab colonizers and invaders, sheesh.

The locals were evicted. Making irrational claims do not help your case at all.

Link?

If the non-Jews had not been evicted there would not be Palestinian refugee camps. No link is required.

Link? Palestinian refugee camps occurred after the Arabs attacked, 48, and then 67.

You see, you got nothing but false propoganda. Non of your famous "documents" can show that there was eviction of Arabs, blabbermouth.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First --- Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 [link to .pdf] does not address the concepts of the "consent of the govern." It was not a criteria used in the recommendation from the UN Special Committee on Palestine to the General Assembly.

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

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 political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".
-----------------------
The Palestinians universally rejected a foreign created government imposed on them.They had the right to reject this foreign imposition.

(COMMENT)

The Article 21 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted [A/RES/3/217A (III)] in December 1948 (6 month after the Israeli Declaration of Independence) as a non-binding resolution. While subparagraph (3) of the Resolution states that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government;" it is not practiced universally or world-wide.

There are 22 in the League of Arab States (LAS).

Algeria = A military dictatorship with few legal institutions defining it.
Bahrain = Constitutional Monarchy
Comoros = Republic
Djibouti = Republic
Egypt = Republic
Iraq = Parliamentary Democracy
Jordan = Constitutional Monarchy
Kuwait = Constitutional Emirate
Lebanon = Republic
Libya = UNDEFINED --- Operates under a transitional government under siege.
Mauritania = Republic
Morocco = Constitutional Monarch
Oman = Monarchy
Palestine = Unity Government (Coalition)
Qatar = Emirate
Saudi Arabia = Monarchy
Somalia = In the process of attempting a federal parliamentary republic.
Sudan = Federal republic ruled by the National Congress Party (NCP), which seized power by military coup in 1989;
Syria = UNDEFINED --- Operates under a transitional government under siege.
Tunisia = Republic
UAE = Federation with specified powers delegated to the UAE federal government and other powers reserved to member emirates.
Yemen = UNDEFINED --- Operates under a transitional government under siege.
​

The word "democracy" literally means "rule by the people." In a democracy, the people govern. This is the description of the meaning behind: "Consent of the Govern" In the "List of Forms of Governments," a Democracy refers to a broad range of types of government based upon the "consent of the governed." It is usually practiced in the form of a republic, which provides checks and balances and an establishment of the collective head.

Of the 22 members of the LAS, only 7 (one-third) are either Republics, Democracies or variations. Another 7 are forms of dynastic Islamic Monarchies/Emirates. The remaining third is a set of states in failure or internal conflict.

The implication that the UN must promote a government through the "consent of the govern," flies in the face of a majority of the worlds population. Approximately 20% of the worlds population is in a Communist State --- The People's Republic of China; in which the power structure in such a governments is centralized and conservative. The idea you promote that "a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised, while sounding good --- is not generally true. It is not even true in the Regional Governments of the Middle East and Arab States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, your timeline of what becomes a right and when --- is fouled-up.

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

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.

(COMMENT)

No UN Resolution comes before 1945. And No UN Resolution expands the concept of "sovereignty and independence" to a status above the roll of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations set by treaty.

The idea that "Palestine was born under foreign military occupation" is ambiguous at best. Yes the 1988 Declared Palestine (territories occupied by Israel in 1967) was born under "occupation." Palestine (the territory to which the former Mandate applied) was created solely by the Allied Powers (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers).

The Arab Palestinian had a number of opportunities to exercise their rights (pertaining to that era in time) and generally used it (with the exception of 1951 and 1988) in a negative or obstructive fashion. Clearly, in 1988, the Palestinians Declared Independence. And in doing so --- exercised their right --- as it existed then.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea that "Palestine was born under foreign military occupation" is ambiguous at best​

By 1924 Palestine had been under British military occupation for several years. That occupation was supposed to change to a mandate. For Britain that was just a name change. It continued its military occupation until it left in 1948.

Nah, even the UN noted that the concept of a Palestinian people and state was a NEW PHENOMENON. Yikes! Where to now, captain bullshit?!

 

[montelatici]

The UN never, ever stated anything of the sort. Constant, pathological lying from Ruddy.

 

[Roudy]

Look it up liar. Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents.

Still can't come up with a link showing Jews evviting the Arabs, eh?

You miserable fool. Ha ha ha.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, your timeline of what becomes a right and when --- is fouled-up.

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

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.

(COMMENT)

No UN Resolution comes before 1945. And No UN Resolution expands the concept of "sovereignty and independence" to a status above the roll of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations set by treaty.

The idea that "Palestine was born under foreign military occupation" is ambiguous at best. Yes the 1988 Declared Palestine (territories occupied by Israel in 1967) was born under "occupation." Palestine (the territory to which the former Mandate applied) was created solely by the Allied Powers (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers).

The Arab Palestinian had a number of opportunities to exercise their rights (pertaining to that era in time) and generally used it (with the exception of 1951 and 1988) in a negative or obstructive fashion. Clearly, in 1988, the Palestinians Declared Independence. And in doing so --- exercised their right --- as it existed then.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea that "Palestine was born under foreign military occupation" is ambiguous at best​

By 1924 Palestine had been under British military occupation for several years. That occupation was supposed to change to a mandate. For Britain that was just a name change. It continued its military occupation until it left in 1948.

And at this time "Israel" was a mere Dream......

 

[montelatici]

Look it up liar. Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents.

Still can't come up with a link showing Jews evviting the Arabs, eh?

You miserable fool. Ha ha ha.

Keep blabbering. I said that the Europeans evicted the local non-Jews. This is just a fact, no links required. I don't have any idea what "evviting" means. (Don't post when you are on the sauce.

The personal insults and the "ha,ha,has" just make you appear more of an uneducated clown than you really are, if that's possible.

 

[toastman]

Look it up liar. Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents.

Still can't come up with a link showing Jews evviting the Arabs, eh?

You miserable fool. Ha ha ha.

Keep blabbering. I said that the Europeans evicted the local non-Jews. This is just a fact, no links required. I don't have any idea what "evviting" means. (Don't post when you are on the sauce.

The personal insults and the "ha,ha,has" just make you appear more of an uneducated clown than you really are, if that's possible.

The fact that you brought up a clear typo says a lot about you Monti.

 

[montelatici]

What does it say Toast?

 

[Roudy]

Look it up liar. Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents.

Still can't come up with a link showing Jews evviting the Arabs, eh?

You miserable fool. Ha ha ha.

Keep blabbering. I said that the Europeans evicted the local non-Jews. This is just a fact, no links required. I don't have any idea what "evviting" means. (Don't post when you are on the sauce.

The personal insults and the "ha,ha,has" just make you appear more of an uneducated clown than you really are, if that's possible.

Actually, it's you that looks like an uneducated troll with nothing better to do all day than post terrorist propoganda. I doubt you even graduated from high school.

Typical Pro Palestinian mentality, accusing others of things you are most guilty of.

Ha ha ha...ha ha ha...yes I write that because you are obviously so mentally ill, that you make me laugh.

So, after two days of scouring all those "documents" where's your proof that the jews evicted anybody?

YA GOT NOTHIN'!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

 

[Roudy]

What does it say Toast?

That you're a pathetic, desperate propagandist who's hatred of Jews has driven you insane.

 

[Roudy]

Look it up liar. Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents.

Still can't come up with a link showing Jews evviting the Arabs, eh?

You miserable fool. Ha ha ha.

Keep blabbering. I said that the Europeans evicted the local non-Jews. This is just a fact, no links required. I don't have any idea what "evviting" means. (Don't post when you are on the sauce.

The personal insults and the "ha,ha,has" just make you appear more of an uneducated clown than you really are, if that's possible.

The fact that you brought up a clear typo says a lot about you Monti.

Don't forget, instead of completing the sentence with a parenthesis ")" he put a period. Must be because he's an insane, illiterate troll.

This is all because he can't come up with any proof that Jews evicted anybody. So he's just creating one diversion after another.

Oh look! A bird! No it's a ROCKET from a Hamas freedom fighter! Ha ha ha.

 

[Phoenall]

You are like the Baghdad Bob of debates. You claim to have won all the debates that you've actually gotten your butt kicked.

It is difficult to lose a debate when the facts are all on one's side. The difficult part is accessing the source documentation, once one has access to the source documentation it is a matter of cutting and pasting, letting the text make one's point. Relying on propaganda to make a point is only possible when one is debating with individuals that lack research skills. Clearly, I don't have that problem.

You clearly have a problem because you keep posting the same two or three documents which as I proved you edited the parts which disprove your claims.

The mentally ill hired false propogandist troll for PaliNazis calling others propagandists. Ha ha ha. Now that's a doozy. Do you ever work, you fuckin' bum?

Nothing is edited at all. You proved nothing You just can't take the truth. There are not just 2 or 3 documents, there are 100s of archived official documents that support every claim I make. That's why it's so easy to demonstrate that everything you claim is a lie and propaganda.

Yet you post the same 2 or 3 of them, so where are the links to the other 100s

No, I have posted from dozens of documents. This is a link to hundreds of documents.

UNISPAL DOCUMENTS COLLECTION

You mean you have spammed this board and others with manipulated reports.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not a smokescreen at all.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

Your answer --- "An Arab state." Not Palestine. --- suggests that you concurred that the "citizens of the Government of Palestine" turned down the opportunity for an independent and sovereign Arab State. And it also suggests that you make a distinction between and "Arab State" and a "Palestine State."

As you can see, Palestine was not defined by, governed by, or sovereign to, any indigenous population.

The Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians:

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

• • 
    “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”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.​

In the time that the Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians were afforded the opportunity to set-up quasi-government agencies, and work towards gradual autonomy, the Arab Palestinians rejected several opportunities to begin the process to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Do you have anything that does not include the colonial scheme?

It was all a colonial scheme, even the arab muslim nations set up under the various mandates. o why are you singling out the Palestinian mandate as being any different

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not a smokescreen at all.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

Your answer --- "An Arab state." Not Palestine. --- suggests that you concurred that the "citizens of the Government of Palestine" turned down the opportunity for an independent and sovereign Arab State. And it also suggests that you make a distinction between and "Arab State" and a "Palestine State."

As you can see, Palestine was not defined by, governed by, or sovereign to, any indigenous population.

The Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians:

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

• • 
    “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”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.​

In the time that the Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians were afforded the opportunity to set-up quasi-government agencies, and work towards gradual autonomy, the Arab Palestinians rejected several opportunities to begin the process to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

And it also suggests that you make a distinction between and "Arab State" and a "Palestine State."​

Obviously you do not understand the distinction.

Why they are both the same when push comes to shove. Any Palestinian state would very soon become an Islamic state and the non muslims would be ethnically cleansed in short order.

 

[montelatici]

It is difficult to lose a debate when the facts are all on one's side. The difficult part is accessing the source documentation, once one has access to the source documentation it is a matter of cutting and pasting, letting the text make one's point. Relying on propaganda to make a point is only possible when one is debating with individuals that lack research skills. Clearly, I don't have that problem.

You clearly have a problem because you keep posting the same two or three documents which as I proved you edited the parts which disprove your claims.

The mentally ill hired false propogandist troll for PaliNazis calling others propagandists. Ha ha ha. Now that's a doozy. Do you ever work, you fuckin' bum?

Nothing is edited at all. You proved nothing You just can't take the truth. There are not just 2 or 3 documents, there are 100s of archived official documents that support every claim I make. That's why it's so easy to demonstrate that everything you claim is a lie and propaganda.

Yet you post the same 2 or 3 of them, so where are the links to the other 100s

No, I have posted from dozens of documents. This is a link to hundreds of documents.

UNISPAL DOCUMENTS COLLECTION

You mean you have spammed this board and others with manipulated reports.

I see the facts, even when written down in black and white can't deprogram the brainwashing you and Ruddy have undergone.

Nothing is manipulated it is just what the text says, verbatim. Sorry it contradicts nearly all the propaganda you have fed and constantly spew.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not a smokescreen at all.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

Your answer --- "An Arab state." Not Palestine. --- suggests that you concurred that the "citizens of the Government of Palestine" turned down the opportunity for an independent and sovereign Arab State. And it also suggests that you make a distinction between and "Arab State" and a "Palestine State."

As you can see, Palestine was not defined by, governed by, or sovereign to, any indigenous population.

The Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians:

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

• • 
    “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”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.​

In the time that the Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians were afforded the opportunity to set-up quasi-government agencies, and work towards gradual autonomy, the Arab Palestinians rejected several opportunities to begin the process to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Do you have anything that does not include the colonial scheme?

It was all a colonial scheme, even the arab muslim nations set up under the various mandates. o why are you singling out the Palestinian mandate as being any different

There cannot be a colonial project without colonists you nitwit. Do you ever reread the nonsense you write?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not a smokescreen at all.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

Your answer --- "An Arab state." Not Palestine. --- suggests that you concurred that the "citizens of the Government of Palestine" turned down the opportunity for an independent and sovereign Arab State. And it also suggests that you make a distinction between and "Arab State" and a "Palestine State."

As you can see, Palestine was not defined by, governed by, or sovereign to, any indigenous population.

The Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians:

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

• • 
    “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”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.​

In the time that the Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians were afforded the opportunity to set-up quasi-government agencies, and work towards gradual autonomy, the Arab Palestinians rejected several opportunities to begin the process to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Do you have anything that does not include the colonial scheme?

It was all a colonial scheme, even the arab muslim nations set up under the various mandates. o why are you singling out the Palestinian mandate as being any different

Israel singled itself out. In all of the other countries mentioned the natives still live in their homeland.

In the case of Israel the natives got the boot. So Israel is the odd one out by its own choice.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that like most Muslim populations of the greater Middle East and Gulf States, few of those in the tribes were able to grasp and understand the intent and purpose of the post-WW1 Mandates. Nor were these populations to understand the unification effort of the military and political campaigns, in which the various Arab tribes, Sheikhdoms, and Emirates, on most of the Arabian Peninsula were gradually inducted by the House of Saud into a single Kingdom --- Saudi Arabia came into existence on 23 September 1932.

Israel singled itself out. In all of the other countries mentioned the natives still live in their homeland.

In the case of Israel the natives got the boot. So Israel is the odd one out by its own choice.

(COMMENT)

And in general, the attmpt to over throw the newly formed government of Israel was a major criminal offense.

This is not truly colonialism, just the same as the unification of the tribes by the House of Saud was not empire building.

Most Respectfully,
R