Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[montelatici]

1. Attempting to prevent a colonial power from establishing a settler colony on one's land is not only not a criminal offense, it is a duty of the people in the process of being colonized, to resist colonization.

I don't like to use Wiki because there is an acknowledged high level of organized editing of articles that have to do with the I/P conflict, especially via the Hasbara project. But, since the definition of settler colonialism is not that controversial, U.S., Australian, New Zealand academics freely admit that their respective countries are settler colonial projects, I am using it here. The Wiki definition of settler colonialism applies to the Zionist project.

"Settler colonialism is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign family units move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

Land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


The "tribes" lived on the Arabian peninsula, they did not come from another continent to colonize the peninsula.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

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

How so?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I think you are lost here.

Where is the point of origin for the "duty of the people" --- to --- "prevent a colonial power from establishing a settler colony?"

1. Attempting to prevent a colonial power from establishing a settler colony on one's land is not only not a criminal offense, it is a duty of the people in the process of being colonized, to resist colonization.

(COMMENT)

You start by asking the questions:

• Is there a distinction between "legal duty" and a "moral obligation?"
• How are "duties" and "obligations" established?

I don't like to use Wiki because there is an acknowledged high level of organized editing of articles that have to do with the I/P conflict, especially via the Hasbara project. But, since the definition of settler colonialism is not that controversial, U.S., Australian, New Zealand academics freely admit that their respective countries are settler colonial projects, I am using it here. The Wiki definition of settler colonialism applies to the Zionist project.

(COMMENT)

Forget the political end-fighting and use your intellect. Is there a difference between "colonization by settlers" --- and --- "colonialism by settlers?" (If so, what is it?)

The difficulty in the question is the very issue that many pro-Palestinians raise: That colonialism extends from imperialism; conquest in which the European Imperialist expects to receive a return of their exploratory investment --- or --- either an economic profit or strategic benefits. But in the case of imperialism --- foreign powers generally extend administration over the territory without a significant investment in settlement. This is more commonly seen in economic hegemony.

Colonization is more akin to migration --- with the migrants maintain "strong links" with their parent nation; but not necessarily a subordinate association. Typically, the migrants obtain tremendous "privileges" over indigenous population in the area being colonized. This is more the case of the Jewish Population and its immigration to the Middle East (Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied).

The big distinct is in the return on the investment to the Allied Powers and the Mandatory. There was no economic, political or military advantage achieved in the Mandate territories realized by the Mandatories.

"Settler colonialism is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign family units move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the territory to which the Mandate applied, the Jewish People migrated under the authority of the legitimate government established by treaty and overseen by the Allied Powers and the Council of the League of Nations. The principle objective was the establishment of the Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish people and culture.

Land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)
This would be arguable if it were not for the fact that the issue is cultural preservation and not colonialism.

The "tribes" lived on the Arabian peninsula, they did not come from another continent to colonize the peninsula.

(COMMENT)

The distance travelled is not the criteria by which you judge --- but the objective. In the case of the Arab Tribal unification, the House of Saud (Second Saudi State) appraised the territory and subordinated the Main Tribes of:

• Ajman
• Al-Dawasir
• Al-Murrah
• Amarat
• Anaizah
• Awazim
• Bani Malik
• Bani Yam
• Dahamsha
• Dhufir
• Harb
• Huwaytat
• Muntafiq
• Mutair
• Qahtan
• Ruwalla
• Shammar
• Utaibah

Whether you unify the territory from Europe or Arabia --- the result is nearly the same in terms of the leadership in the other 18 tribes (removed from power).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

1. The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on natural law.

2. Among the experts, there is a difference between simple colonialism and settler colonialism. There is a website dedicated to the subject.

"Settler colonialism is a global and transnational phenomenon, and as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present. There is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism or post-settler colonialism because settler colonialism is a resilient formation that rarely ends. Not all migrants are settlers; as Patrick Wolfe has noted, settlers come to stay. They are founders of political orders who carry with them a distinct sovereign capacity. And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear). Sometimes settler colonial forms operate within colonial ones, sometimes they subvert them, sometimes they replace them. But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other."

definition settler colonial studies blog

3. Whether colonists migrate legally or illegally to form a colony, makes very little difference. The Italian colonists that colonized Tunisia (they outnumbered the French colonists 3 to 1) were legal colonists though not from the colonizing power. It did not make them any less "colonists" and were treated no different from the French when the native Tunisians were able to force decolonization.

4. The people on the Arabian peninsula were living in the land, they were not colonists. The European Jews came from Europe and were not living on the land that was colonized. I hope you can comprehend the distinction.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These were direct attacks against Civilians and Civilian Objects --- which were protected against attack under Rules #6, #10, and #21, at a minimum, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

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

How so?

(COMMENT)

UN CHARTER
Chapter I --- Article 2 --- Clause 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

What does it say Toast?

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

I dunno Roudy every one at times uses Propaganda but only Israel have made it an Art Form over the past 50 years.........Glass Houses Roudy,Glass Houses.....steve

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These were direct attacks against Civilians and Civilian Objects --- which were protected against attack under Rules #6, #10, and #21, at a minimum, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

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

How so?

(COMMENT)

UN CHARTER
Chapter I --- Article 2 --- Clause 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

How about posting a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where that territorial integrity was violated?

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These were direct attacks against Civilians and Civilian Objects --- which were protected against attack under Rules #6, #10, and #21, at a minimum, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

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

How so?

(COMMENT)

UN CHARTER
Chapter I --- Article 2 --- Clause 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

But Israel was NEVER ratified by the UN security council deeming it an unlawful State.

 

[Roudy]

What does it say Toast?

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

I dunno Roudy every one at times uses Propaganda but only Israel have made it an Art Form over the past 50 years.........Glass Houses Roudy,Glass Houses.....steve

Every heard of Pallywood? It's a huge industry dedicated to bullshit and lies and employs many so called Palestinians. When it comes to propoganda they are the masters.

 

[Roudy]

1. The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on natural law.

2. Among the experts, there is a difference between simple colonialism and settler colonialism. There is a website dedicated to the subject.

"Settler colonialism is a global and transnational phenomenon, and as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present. There is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism or post-settler colonialism because settler colonialism is a resilient formation that rarely ends. Not all migrants are settlers; as Patrick Wolfe has noted, settlers come to stay. They are founders of political orders who carry with them a distinct sovereign capacity. And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear). Sometimes settler colonial forms operate within colonial ones, sometimes they subvert them, sometimes they replace them. But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other."

definition settler colonial studies blog

3. Whether colonists migrate legally or illegally to form a colony, makes very little difference. The Italian colonists that colonized Tunisia (they outnumbered the French colonists 3 to 1) were legal colonists though not from the colonizing power. It did not make them any less "colonists" and were treated no different from the French when the native Tunisians were able to force decolonization.

4. The people on the Arabian peninsula were living in the land, they were not colonists. The European Jews came from Europe and were not living on the land that was colonized. I hope you can comprehend the distinction.

So after the Arab savages invaded, raped, looted and killed nearly every country in the region, they ended up living there and that's what made them indigenous! Nice.

 

[theliq]

1. The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on natural law.

2. Among the experts, there is a difference between simple colonialism and settler colonialism. There is a website dedicated to the subject.

"Settler colonialism is a global and transnational phenomenon, and as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present. There is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism or post-settler colonialism because settler colonialism is a resilient formation that rarely ends. Not all migrants are settlers; as Patrick Wolfe has noted, settlers come to stay. They are founders of political orders who carry with them a distinct sovereign capacity. And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear). Sometimes settler colonial forms operate within colonial ones, sometimes they subvert them, sometimes they replace them. But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other."

definition settler colonial studies blog

3. Whether colonists migrate legally or illegally to form a colony, makes very little difference. The Italian colonists that colonized Tunisia (they outnumbered the French colonists 3 to 1) were legal colonists though not from the colonizing power. It did not make them any less "colonists" and were treated no different from the French when the native Tunisians were able to force decolonization.

4. The people on the Arabian peninsula were living in the land, they were not colonists. The European Jews came from Europe and were not living on the land that was colonized. I hope you can comprehend the distinction.

So after the Arab savages invaded, raped, looted and killed nearly every country in the region, they ended up living there and that's what made them indigenous! Nice.

No they did not do the things you mentioned at all Roudy......but Jews,Israelites have

 

[RoccoR]

theliq, et al,

The Israeli application for admission was forwarded to the UN Security Council.

P F Tinmore, et al,

These were direct attacks against Civilians and Civilian Objects --- which were protected against attack under Rules #6, #10, and #21, at a minimum, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

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

How so?

(COMMENT)

UN CHARTER
Chapter I --- Article 2 --- Clause 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

But Israel was NEVER ratified by the UN security council deeming it an unlawful State.

(COMMENT)

The UN Security Council Recommended to the "General Assembly" that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations; S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 4 March 1949.

The General Assembly Decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations; A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949. The Charter is quite clear:

Article 4
CHAPTER II: MEMBERSHIP

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

There it is:

• Application
• Favorable Security Council Recommendation
• General Assembly Admission

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So you post the reports in their entirety do you, or do you start half way through a sentence that is half way through the report. That is the manipulation you carry out every time after being destroyed on your Berman report

 

[montelatici]

I post the relevant text you nitwit. The reports are hundreds of pages long. There is no manipulation. I have never been destroyed by any of you propagandists. Quit dreaming, I only post fact, supported by fact. Your propaganda is unveiled as such through the posting of fact, so your only defense is making false claims.

 

[Phoenall]

1. The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on natural law.

2. Among the experts, there is a difference between simple colonialism and settler colonialism. There is a website dedicated to the subject.

"Settler colonialism is a global and transnational phenomenon, and as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present. There is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism or post-settler colonialism because settler colonialism is a resilient formation that rarely ends. Not all migrants are settlers; as Patrick Wolfe has noted, settlers come to stay. They are founders of political orders who carry with them a distinct sovereign capacity. And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear). Sometimes settler colonial forms operate within colonial ones, sometimes they subvert them, sometimes they replace them. But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other."

definition settler colonial studies blog

3. Whether colonists migrate legally or illegally to form a colony, makes very little difference. The Italian colonists that colonized Tunisia (they outnumbered the French colonists 3 to 1) were legal colonists though not from the colonizing power. It did not make them any less "colonists" and were treated no different from the French when the native Tunisians were able to force decolonization.

4. The people on the Arabian peninsula were living in the land, they were not colonists. The European Jews came from Europe and were not living on the land that was colonized. I hope you can comprehend the distinction.

So after the Arab savages invaded, raped, looted and killed nearly every country in the region, they ended up living there and that's what made them indigenous! Nice.

No they did not do the things you mentioned at all Roudy......but Jews,Israelites have

Read the hadiths and you will find that you are wrong

 

[Roudy]

1. The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on natural law.

2. Among the experts, there is a difference between simple colonialism and settler colonialism. There is a website dedicated to the subject.

"Settler colonialism is a global and transnational phenomenon, and as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present. There is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism or post-settler colonialism because settler colonialism is a resilient formation that rarely ends. Not all migrants are settlers; as Patrick Wolfe has noted, settlers come to stay. They are founders of political orders who carry with them a distinct sovereign capacity. And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear). Sometimes settler colonial forms operate within colonial ones, sometimes they subvert them, sometimes they replace them. But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other."

definition settler colonial studies blog

3. Whether colonists migrate legally or illegally to form a colony, makes very little difference. The Italian colonists that colonized Tunisia (they outnumbered the French colonists 3 to 1) were legal colonists though not from the colonizing power. It did not make them any less "colonists" and were treated no different from the French when the native Tunisians were able to force decolonization.

4. The people on the Arabian peninsula were living in the land, they were not colonists. The European Jews came from Europe and were not living on the land that was colonized. I hope you can comprehend the distinction.

So after the Arab savages invaded, raped, looted and killed nearly every country in the region, they ended up living there and that's what made them indigenous! Nice.

No they did not do the things you mentioned at all Roudy......but Jews,Israelites have

Ya okay, and that's just because you said so, right?

 

[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

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

And it was the arab muslims that colonised by force the whole of the M.E. and are still doing it in Africa and Europe today

 

[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

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.

So the Egyptians living in the west bank are in their homeland, and the Syrians living in gaza are in their homeland. I know the Jews living in Israel are in their homeland as International Law says they are. And since when has Saudi been in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran, because that is where the leaders and most of the people of those nations came from.

 

[Phoenall]

o

I post the relevant text you nitwit. The reports are hundreds of pages long. There is no manipulation. I have never been destroyed by any of you propagandists. Quit dreaming, I only post fact, supported by fact. Your propaganda is unveiled as such through the posting of fact, so your only defense is making false claims.

No you SPAM the board with the same cherry picked and manipulated reports from the UN and other sources that support your islamomorn POV

 

[Phoenall]

I post the relevant text you nitwit. The reports are hundreds of pages long. There is no manipulation. I have never been destroyed by any of you propagandists. Quit dreaming, I only post fact, supported by fact. Your propaganda is unveiled as such through the posting of fact, so your only defense is making false claims.

No they are 5 or 6 pages long at the most of the relevant information, stupid things like nominees for committee are what should be removed. Not the parts that destroy your argument before it has even got of the ground