Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

[
I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues.​

I don't see any question marks in your posts. What issues would you like me to address?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

[
I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

[
I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

[
I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yup, that's Tinmore for you ! You described his behaviour to a TEE !

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

[
I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

[
I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Yes she has, and yes she does. Israel is a sovereign state, and international law defines a sovereign state as having defined territory. I provided a link to back up my statement.
Where's your link ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

[
I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Yes she has, and yes she does. Israel is a sovereign state, and international law defines a sovereign state as having defined territory. I provided a link to back up my statement.
Where's your link ?

Did your link define Israel's territory?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Yes she has, and yes she does. Israel is a sovereign state, and international law defines a sovereign state as having defined territory. I provided a link to back up my statement.
Where's your link ?

Did your link define Israel's territory?

Look at a map of Israel. What's so hard about that?

Where are your links that say Israel has no defined territory??

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Unless they were solely arab muslim, so now they are seen as complete idiots by the world at large. All that has happened to the arab muslim Palestinians has been through their own crass stupidity and pig headedness because they believe that they are the superior race ( sound familiar ). They had their chance and refused to take it up and now are suffering for their failures. What makes you think for one second that if all the Jews left Israel and went elsewhere that the arab muslims would be able to cope and build a government to look after the people.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

This does not make any sense what so ever

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,

 

[montelatici]

Rocco et al.

There is much confusion about Israel's borders. If one assumes that the creation of a European settler state in Palestine was legal under international law (I don't, by the way as the UN cannot, by its Charter create states), Israel's borders were defined by the provisional government of the Europeans prior to declaring independence. The communications sent by the Europeans to foreign nations requesting recognition were similar to the one written to the U.S.

"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.

With full knowledge of the deep bond of sympathy which has existed and has been strengthened over the past thirty years between the Government of the United States and the Jewish people of Palestine, I have been authorized by the provisional government of the new state to tender this message and to express the hope that your government will recognize and will welcome Israel into the community of nations.

Very respectfully yours,

ELIAHU EPSTEIN

Agent, Provisional Government of Israel

Avalon Project - A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 - Independence of Israel - Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States May 15 1948

So the only legal borders of Israel are the 1947 borders, as recognized by the U.S. and other countries.

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory by legal annexation, in agreement with, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by conquest violates the fundamental principle of the UN Charter.

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course they do. Everybody does.

There were always indications within international law that grant an individual or a group the right to self-defense. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Right's preamble (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

However, not until the General Assembly 20th session in 1965 where it was recognized, for the first time, "the legitimacy of struggle by the people under colonial rules to exercise their rights to self-determination and independent." More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

The specified decision has always applied to the Palestinian people and their struggle for freedom. But again, intentional misinterpretation of that law compelled the passing of Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in its 29th session in 1974. The resolution recognized that the collective rights of the Palestinian people were fully and properly recognized. The resolution recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter (which, in retrospect gives them the same right of self-defense granted to sovereign states). In addition, it granted them the right of national independence, sovereignty and right of return to their homes. The resolution had further replaced the mere reference to Palestinians as "refugees" or "the refugee problem", and made them a "principal party in the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East."

Those who still found loopholes in international law to deny the Palestinian people the right to defend themselves had to deal with yet another resolution. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1949, (Act 1 C4), passed in 1977, declared that armed struggle can be used, as a last resort, as a method of exercising the right of self-determination.

Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves ​

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Yes she has, and yes she does. Israel is a sovereign state, and international law defines a sovereign state as having defined territory. I provided a link to back up my statement.
Where's your link ?

Did your link define Israel's territory?

The Un Res 181 did as of may 14 midnight. Now because of the arab muslims stupidity the land is free for all after Jordan and Egypt relinquished control.

 

[Phoenall]

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Yes she has, and yes she does. Israel is a sovereign state, and international law defines a sovereign state as having defined territory. I provided a link to back up my statement.
Where's your link ?

Did your link define Israel's territory?

Look at a map of Israel. What's so hard about that?

Where are your links that say Israel has no defined territory??

He don't got none boss, he is jus' barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Phoenall]

Rocco et al.

There is much confusion about Israel's borders. If one assumes that the creation of a European settler state in Palestine was legal under international law (I don't, by the way as the UN cannot, by its Charter create states), Israel's borders were defined by the provisional government of the Europeans prior to declaring independence. The communications sent by the Europeans to foreign nations requesting recognition were similar to the one written to the U.S.

"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.

With full knowledge of the deep bond of sympathy which has existed and has been strengthened over the past thirty years between the Government of the United States and the Jewish people of Palestine, I have been authorized by the provisional government of the new state to tender this message and to express the hope that your government will recognize and will welcome Israel into the community of nations.

Very respectfully yours,

ELIAHU EPSTEIN

Agent, Provisional Government of Israel

Avalon Project - A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 - Independence of Israel - Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States May 15 1948

So the only legal borders of Israel are the 1947 borders, as recognized by the U.S. and other countries.

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory by legal annexation, in agreement with, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by conquest violates the fundamental principle of the UN Charter.

You forget that the UN has created states since contrary to its charter and they have been islamonazi states, but that is by the by as the state was created in 1923 by a body that could enact International law. So you lose that point

The LoN defined the territory in 1923 and laid it down on the other mandates in existence at the time. If you don't agree then Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi are all illegal as well, because the LoN defined their borders for them.

That was the case on may 14 1948 right up until the combined arab armies attacked and attempted to take Israel by force and murder all the Jews. They failed in this and as a consequence Israel gained control of more free land that had not been claimed by the end of the British mandate. The UN recognised this and so amended their status and borders. So the only borders are those that exist as of 1949 when the arab muslims lost land and many battles. It was not land won by conquest but land taken freely that had no sovereign owner

 

[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.

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.

Only one problem with your propaganda Abdul, the arab muslim Palestinians were not part of the arab national movement or the arab higher committee.

The British could not grant the Palestinians anything, it was not in their remit or authority. Only the Mandate could do that and while the arab muslims were agitating and warmongering they declined to place the Jews in any more danger.

The muslims were never ready for independence as is shown by the UN's refusal to allow them anything more than observer status. The arab muslims could not refuse the Balfour project as they had no legal rights to do so, nor did they have the right to refuse the LoN Mandate for Palestine that declared the land to be for the Jewish National Home. Not once have you come up with any evidence to support your RACIST LIES that there was a colonial project set up to invade Palestine and evict the arab muslim illegal Immigrants. The hostiles where from elsewhere and they were arab muslims and they have evicted 90% of the Christians in Palestine by brutal force so they can eradicate all but islam. Never forget the arab muslim mantra that has been slightly amended First the Saturday people will be cleansed from arab lands then the Sunday people until it is all for islam.


The arab muslim charters and actions are the only evidence any sane rational person needs to see just what muslims have planned for the Jews and Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Instead of just posting islamomoron denials why don't you post links from a non partisan source showing where the did ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

It is the point as they were in breach of the UN charter by declaring all out war on the Jews. As such the UN should have shown its fangs then and invaded their nations and took over, ousting the leaders and removing the military.


Is that NO the basic rights and duties of states does not apply, or NO that existence is not dependent on external recognition before an entity has the right to defend its integrity and that the recognition must be implicitly expressed

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Then what land did they try and declare independence on in 1948 after the deadline ?

 

[Phoenall]

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 ?

No they didn't.

I have asked many times for someone to show me where any Arab country entered Israel.

Nobody has answered.

You forget that Israel is not an island surrounded by water, it is a small nation surrounded by hostile nations. And the arab league armies invaded through the land of Palestine that was Israeli under international law. Is that clear enough for you the land delineated in the Mandate for Palestine that was granted to the Jews that the UN illegally took away from them and was invaded by hostiles out to grab the land.