Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[Phoenall]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I quite understand that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believes that:

• Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit, and their homeland.
• The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny.
• The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal.
• The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.
• Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism.
• Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
  
• Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

(COMMENT)

While I know what the HoAP believe, I find it almost inconceivable that they cannot observe the reality that: Israel is real. Israel completed the Steps Preparatory to Independence that were adopted by the General Assembly. Israel declared independence pursuant to UN instructions. Israel applied for UN Membership in the prescribed manner. The Security Council recommended approval and the motion was adopted by the General Assembly. What follows after that is entirely the fault of the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the HoAP adopted the path of conflict because they did not get what they wanted. And they have been refusing to negotiate in good faith ever since.

All that the Arab Palestinians are today, is what they deserve to be --- based on the choices they have made.

Most Respectfully,
R

Same old shit, Rocco.

How about answering some of my questions that you have been ducking?

He has answered all of them, it is you that does not like the answers.

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

He has answered all of them, your problem is you have not seen the answers you want

A page of irrelevant verbosity does not an answer make.

Depends on whether or not you are a supporter of Palestinian terrorism or not. If you want an answer that supports your POV ask the question of one of team palestine

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al.

What question have I not answered?

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

(COMMENT)

It seems to me you either don't like the answers or don't understand the answers because you over simplify what you have already decided is the right answer.

And you seldom specify the question in a clear context. This is especially true when you talk about the place "Palestine." You don't seem to you the proper definition and nearly alway attempt to tie it to a "people" instead of the time-period which defines it. You nearly always try to associate the Arab ownership with the Governmental authority.

Don't cry foul if you cannot state with clarity the question, and don't object to formal definitions that you don't agree with just because the outcome is not in your favor.

NOW! If you have an outstanding question that you feel was not answered === state it plainly. But don't allude to a question that you didn't clearly ask. That does not contribute to the discussion or enrich the conversation or discussion.

What is "THE" question? And please, don't ask about borders because I copied the text to the treaties for the two international borders and the armistice for the two protected demarcations.

Most Respectfully,
R

How about:

What international border of Israel have the Palestinians violated?

Since there was no partition, where did Israel acquire the land it sits on?

The only International borders are those with Egypt and Jordan. The Palestinian nation has no borders at all

The UN says there was a partition so Israel acquired the land designated in the partition. Remember it was an either/or option and not a both side must one.

 

[Phoenall]

No, the hostile pieces of shit were the Arabs, as they had massacred and killed Jews before any Arabs were killed. That's just a fact that you cannot handle.

And the European Jews went there not to evict anyone, but to create a Jewish home for themselves, as promised by the British. That's just a fact.
Where is your proof that all the Jews went there to evict the locals ?

But the Christians were living in Palestine and the Jews were living in Europe and went to Palestine and evicted them and took their land to create a Jewish state. That's just a fact. That is what happened. What more proof do you need. There is now a Jewish State. I really can't understand your cognitive dissonance. Plus, what authority did the British have to expel the Christians to make room for the Jews.

That was not their intention. They left Europe for obvious reasons because the British, who captured the region from the Ottomans, not the Palestinians, promised them a Jewish Homeland. The local Arabs, during the Palestine Civil war of 1947 and during the 1948 war (with the help of FIVE other countries) tried to expel the local Jews and the European ones. The problem is, the Jews fought harder then them and instead they got expelled. Attacking people have consequences.

Of course it was the intention of the European Jews to expel the Christians. Why else would have they gone to Palestine?

"Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.”
(Theodore Herzl, 12 June 1895)

But there are Arabs in Palestine. I did not know.”
(Max Nordau, 1897)

So looking after the arab muslim itinerants is expelling the Christians is it. You are grasping at straws and showing your true colours as a RACIST LIAR.

Of 414K migrants to Palestine from 1920 to 1946, 376K were European Jews. Just fact. Stating fact is not lying. Making things up as you do could be construed as lying. Calling everyone that speaks the truth a racist and liar. does not improve your status as a clown on this forum.


View attachment 40554


and

UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

"b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

First point how could the Jews be illegal immigrants when they were granted the right to enter Palestine ? Then how could they be illegal immigrants when they were in Cyprus and not Palestine ?
Lastly explain why of 1500 illegal immigrants 1,000 where arab muslims according to your link ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al.

What question have I not answered?

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

(COMMENT)

It seems to me you either don't like the answers or don't understand the answers because you over simplify what you have already decided is the right answer.

And you seldom specify the question in a clear context. This is especially true when you talk about the place "Palestine." You don't seem to you the proper definition and nearly alway attempt to tie it to a "people" instead of the time-period which defines it. You nearly always try to associate the Arab ownership with the Governmental authority.

Don't cry foul if you cannot state with clarity the question, and don't object to formal definitions that you don't agree with just because the outcome is not in your favor.

NOW! If you have an outstanding question that you feel was not answered === state it plainly. But don't allude to a question that you didn't clearly ask. That does not contribute to the discussion or enrich the conversation or discussion.

What is "THE" question? And please, don't ask about borders because I copied the text to the treaties for the two international borders and the armistice for the two protected demarcations.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

MORE OF YOUR RACIST LIES as the evidence show that Jews were in the majority in 1923.

The LoN were the owners of the land, the arab muslims had not owned it since 1099.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I quite understand that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believes that:

• Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit, and their homeland.
• The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny.
• The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal.
• The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.
• Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism.
• Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
  
• Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

...the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​

You always crack me up when you shovel that horseshit.

The rest of your post does not get any better.

(COMMENT)

While I know what the HoAP believe, I find it almost inconceivable that they cannot observe the reality that: Israel is real. Israel completed the Steps Preparatory to Independence that were adopted by the General Assembly. Israel declared independence pursuant to UN instructions. Israel applied for UN Membership in the prescribed manner. The Security Council recommended approval and the motion was adopted by the General Assembly. What follows after that is entirely the fault of the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the HoAP adopted the path of conflict because they did not get what they wanted. And they have been refusing to negotiate in good faith ever since.

All that the Arab Palestinians are today, is what they deserve to be --- based on the choices they have made.

Most Respectfully,
R

Same old shit, Rocco.

How about answering some of my questions that you have been ducking?

He has answered all of them, it is you that does not like the answers.

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always. To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

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.
​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

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.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually peacefully transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria in to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

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.​

Indeed, the Palestinians refused to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

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.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,​

You keep saying that but you do not list the violations.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is the State of Palestine a participatory type of government?

• The establishment of the Palestinian Legislative Council, through free and direct general elections, made the adoption of a Basic Law suitable for the interim period a necessary foundation upon which to organize the mutual relationship between the government and the people.

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.​

​

Indeed, the Palestinians refused to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

(COMMENT)

You cannot complain about the political outcome --- if you don't participate in the process. You make changes to government though the lawful participation from the inside.

Whether the Palestinian opposed the Mandate System --- and the Mandate to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" --- is unimportant. You (the Hostile Arab Palestinian) have no right to attempt to hard induce change though the use of force and violence when a peace process in a participatory government is offered; the "pursuit in good faith negotiations to adopt appropriate measures to reduce international tensions and strengthen confidence."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This was in regard to the Arab Invasion of 1948. It was from the Paragraphs #2 & #3 of Posting #724.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,​

​

You keep saying that but you do not list the violations.

(COMMENT)

At the outbreak of hostilities by the Initiation of the Arab Force Aggression.

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations .​

• • • NOTE: Same Source

The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.​

(ANSWER)

The Arab League Forces that - in an act of aggression - maneuvered outside their sovereign territory and engaged Israeli Forces specifically violated;

• Article 1(2) of the UN Charter
  • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
• Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
  • 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.

It is generally understood that in the process of exercising the right of self-determination --- the political existence of Israel was independent of recognition by the Arab States. Even before the formal recognition of the State of Israel, Israel had "the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts." This is something you are very familiar with, as you have cited it to me many times. (Convention on Rights and Duties of States)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I quite understand that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believes that:

• Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit, and their homeland.
• The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny.
• The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal.
• The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.
• Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism.
• Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
  
• Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

You always crack me up when you shovel that horseshit.

The rest of your post does not get any better.

(COMMENT)

While I know what the HoAP believe, I find it almost inconceivable that they cannot observe the reality that: Israel is real. Israel completed the Steps Preparatory to Independence that were adopted by the General Assembly. Israel declared independence pursuant to UN instructions. Israel applied for UN Membership in the prescribed manner. The Security Council recommended approval and the motion was adopted by the General Assembly. What follows after that is entirely the fault of the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the HoAP adopted the path of conflict because they did not get what they wanted. And they have been refusing to negotiate in good faith ever since.

All that the Arab Palestinians are today, is what they deserve to be --- based on the choices they have made.

Most Respectfully,
R

Same old shit, Rocco.

How about answering some of my questions that you have been ducking?

He has answered all of them, it is you that does not like the answers.

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always. To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

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.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

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.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the Palestinian government does suck. That is because that is the way the US/Israel wants it.

American Sabotage of Palestinian Democracy

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This was in regard to the Arab Invasion of 1948. It was from the Paragraphs #2 & #3 of Posting #724.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,​

​

You keep saying that but you do not list the violations.

(COMMENT)

At the outbreak of hostilities by the Initiation of the Arab Force Aggression.

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations .​

• • • NOTE: Same Source

The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.​

(ANSWER)

The Arab League Forces that - in an act of aggression - maneuvered outside their sovereign territory and engaged Israeli Forces specifically violated;

• Article 1(2) of the UN Charter
  • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
• Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
  • 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.

It is generally understood that in the process of exercising the right of self-determination --- the political existence of Israel was independent of recognition by the Arab States. Even before the formal recognition of the State of Israel, Israel had "the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts." This is something you are very familiar with, as you have cited it to me many times. (Convention on Rights and Duties of States)

Most Respectfully,
R

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​

Load of crap, Rocco.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al

What is your claim here?

,

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​

​

Load of crap, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

Are you suggesting that Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan, --- DID NOT violated Articles 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter?

• That they DID NOT leave the jurisdiction of their sovereign territory?
• That they DID NOT enter a jurisdiction of another territorial entity?

Are you claiming that the basic concepts outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States do not really apply?

• That some political existence is dependent on external recognition?
• That recognition is required before an entity has the right to defend its integrity and independence?
• That recognition must be implicitly expressed?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

What is your claim here?

,

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​

​

Load of crap, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

Are you suggesting that Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan, --- DID NOT violated Articles 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter?

• That they DID NOT leave the jurisdiction of their sovereign territory?
• That they DID NOT enter a jurisdiction of another territorial entity?

Are you claiming that the basic concepts outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States do not really apply?

• That some political existence is dependent on external recognition?
• That recognition is required before an entity has the right to defend its integrity and independence?
• That recognition must be implicitly expressed?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

1) Not the point. I don't think so.

2) No.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This was in regard to the Arab Invasion of 1948. It was from the Paragraphs #2 & #3 of Posting #724.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,​

​

You keep saying that but you do not list the violations.

(COMMENT)

At the outbreak of hostilities by the Initiation of the Arab Force Aggression.

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations .​

• • • NOTE: Same Source

The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.​

(ANSWER)

The Arab League Forces that - in an act of aggression - maneuvered outside their sovereign territory and engaged Israeli Forces specifically violated;

• Article 1(2) of the UN Charter
  • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
• Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
  • 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.

It is generally understood that in the process of exercising the right of self-determination --- the political existence of Israel was independent of recognition by the Arab States. Even before the formal recognition of the State of Israel, Israel had "the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts." This is something you are very familiar with, as you have cited it to me many times. (Convention on Rights and Duties of States)

Most Respectfully,
R

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​

Load of crap, Rocco.

How is it a load of crap if everything he said was 100% correct?

 

[toastman]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I quite understand that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believes that:

• Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit, and their homeland.
• The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny.
• The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal.
• The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.
• Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism.
• Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
  
• Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

(COMMENT)

While I know what the HoAP believe, I find it almost inconceivable that they cannot observe the reality that: Israel is real. Israel completed the Steps Preparatory to Independence that were adopted by the General Assembly. Israel declared independence pursuant to UN instructions. Israel applied for UN Membership in the prescribed manner. The Security Council recommended approval and the motion was adopted by the General Assembly. What follows after that is entirely the fault of the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the HoAP adopted the path of conflict because they did not get what they wanted. And they have been refusing to negotiate in good faith ever since.

All that the Arab Palestinians are today, is what they deserve to be --- based on the choices they have made.

Most Respectfully,
R

Same old shit, Rocco.

How about answering some of my questions that you have been ducking?

He has answered all of them, it is you that does not like the answers.

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always. To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

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.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al

What is your claim here?

,

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​

​

Load of crap, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

Are you suggesting that Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan, --- DID NOT violated Articles 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter?

• That they DID NOT leave the jurisdiction of their sovereign territory?
• That they DID NOT enter a jurisdiction of another territorial entity?

Are you claiming that the basic concepts outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States do not really apply?

• That some political existence is dependent on external recognition?
• That recognition is required before an entity has the right to defend its integrity and independence?
• That recognition must be implicitly expressed?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

1) Not the point. I don't think so.

2) No.

Of course those 5 Arab states entered a jurisdiction of another territorial integrity. How can you deny such a thing ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Same old shit, Rocco.

How about answering some of my questions that you have been ducking?

He has answered all of them, it is you that does not like the answers.

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always. To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

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.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

 

[toastman]

"A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine"

"The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements"

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia