Israel: Helping To Make A Better World

[P F Tinmore]

Yeah, you certainly like this term "bantustan." It implies an example of "apartheid" administration.

Understanding bantustans and apartheid.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel: Helping To Make A Better World
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Does this address the reality?

The fact that Israel protects its borders from the corruption of the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, is no different (conceptually) from the border controls enforced by any of the Arab League countries.

Oh really? How many Arab League countries are settler colonial projects?

(COMMENT)

How many Arab League Members actually entered into an accord (an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, effectively a treaty) which grants full civil and security control to the Israelis?

The description of suggesting it was some sort of "settler colonial projects" does not actually describe the situation under which the Arab Palestinian invites and consents to full civil and security control.

Your comment is actually a false analogy fallacy when your comment poorly compares two different conditions in order to illustrate a concept of some sort of colonial project.

• Surrogate colonialism • involves a settlement project supported by a colonial power, in which most of the settlers do not come from same ethnic group as the ruling power. Internal colonialism is a notion of uneven structural power between areas of a state. The source of exploitation comes from within the state.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions for nearly a century.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

(COMMENT)

Whether or not the points being made are "Israeli talking point" is actually irrelevant (if there is even such a thing as standing "Israeli Talking Point"). What "IS" relevant? The truth → no matter what the source of the truth; → is still the truth.

The allegation ("Israeli Talking Point") is to suggest that the Arab Palestinians DID NOT "declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions."

The non-Israeli perspective is:

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 Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.

------------------------ AND ------------------------
​

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

In terms of attitude, → the Arab Palestinians would not cooperate in "any" attempts to pursue Article 22 objective. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation stressed that "not a single Arab will cooperate with the UN Palestine Commission." Similarly, the Arab Palestinians continue to pursue (for over a half century) a policy of → no peace → no recognition and → no negotiations with Israel or any prospects for peace.

These are not "talking points" (false analogy), but rather a set of events recorded in time. The inference that they are questionable points by labeling them "Israeli" is a deliberate attempt at misdirection and misinformation. It is a disreputable practice of furthering false arguments through a fallacious analogy, → attempts to imply that the facts are untrue in spite of the historical record.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel: Helping To Make A Better World
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Does this address the reality?

The fact that Israel protects its borders from the corruption of the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, is no different (conceptually) from the border controls enforced by any of the Arab League countries.

Oh really? How many Arab League countries are settler colonial projects?

(COMMENT)

How many Arab League Members actually entered into an accord (an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, effectively a treaty) which grants full civil and security control to the Israelis?

The description of suggesting it was some sort of "settler colonial projects" does not actually describe the situation under which the Arab Palestinian invites and consents to full civil and security control.

Your comment is actually a false analogy fallacy when your comment poorly compares two different conditions in order to illustrate a concept of some sort of colonial project.

• Surrogate colonialism • involves a settlement project supported by a colonial power, in which most of the settlers do not come from same ethnic group as the ruling power. Internal colonialism is a notion of uneven structural power between areas of a state. The source of exploitation comes from within the state.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions for nearly a century.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

(COMMENT)

Whether or not the points being made are "Israeli talking point" is actually irrelevant (if there is even such a thing as standing "Israeli Talking Point"). What "IS" relevant? The truth → no matter what the source of the truth; → is still the truth.

The allegation ("Israeli Talking Point") is to suggest that the Arab Palestinians DID NOT "declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions."

The non-Israeli perspective is:

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 Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.

------------------------ AND ------------------------
​

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

In terms of attitude, → the Arab Palestinians would not cooperate in "any" attempts to pursue Article 22 objective. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation stressed that "not a single Arab will cooperate with the UN Palestine Commission." Similarly, the Arab Palestinians continue to pursue (for over a half century) a policy of → no peace → no recognition and → no negotiations with Israel or any prospects for peace.

These are not "talking points" (false analogy), but rather a set of events recorded in time. The inference that they are questionable points by labeling them "Israeli" is a deliberate attempt at misdirection and misinformation. It is a disreputable practice of furthering false arguments through a fallacious analogy, → attempts to imply that the facts are untrue in spite of the historical record.

Most Respectfully,
R

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 Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.

That "brought into cooperation with the government. →" meant agreeing to sign on as a subordinate part of the settler colonial project.

This was contrary to article 22 on the LoN Covenant.​

 

[RoccoR]

.RE: Israel: Helping To Make A Better World
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is a very poor and incorrect interpretation.

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 Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.

That "brought into cooperation with the government. →" meant agreeing to sign on as a subordinate part of the settler colonial project.

This was contrary to article 22 on the LoN Covenant.​

(COMMENT)

No, it did not mean taking on a "subordinate" partnership.

◈ The Arab Palestinians refused to accept the intent of Artlce16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

◈ The Arab Palestinians wanted then, what they wanted in 1948, and what they wanted in 1988, the entirety of the territory, formerly under the Mandate (less Jordan).

◈ They refused to agree with the Jewish partnership any part of a partition.

◈ They refused to accept any of the founding documents:

◈ The Arabs of Palestine refused to allow the Jews any portion of the Jewish National Home within
formerly under the Mandate (less Jordan). No compromise.

◈ The Arab Palestinians refused to recognize The Balfour Declaration, San Remo Convention, the associated Mandate; or any situation arising or derived therefrom.​

There was nothing customary procedure that the Arab Palestinians even remotely followed at the conclusion of The Great War.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip refused to follow any of the customary protocols of the era. and are the population that created the conditions as they evolved into the present day.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

Yeah, you certainly like this term "bantustan." It implies an example of "apartheid" administration.

Understanding bantustans and apartheid.

It's a ridiculous race bait.
There's nothing in the situation that has to do with skin color.

The prejudice is of the one who arrogantly insists on framing the conflict in such terms,
that deny all context and common sense, to excuse the domination of one ethnic sub-group that is seen as superior to any minorities in the entire middle east.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Could we please stop answering Tinmore about everything which has NOTHING to do with this thread?

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ The Arab Palestinians wanted then, what they wanted in 1948, and what they wanted in 1988, the entirety of the territory, formerly under the Mandate (less Jordan).

Why don't you just say Palestine?

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ The Arab Palestinians refused to recognize The Balfour Declaration, San Remo Convention, the associated Mandate; or any situation arising or derived therefrom.

That wrote them out of national and political rights.

Nobody in their right mind would sign off on that.

 

[Sixties Fan]

◈ The Arab Palestinians refused to recognize The Balfour Declaration, San Remo Convention, the associated Mandate; or any situation arising or derived therefrom.

That wrote them out of national and political rights.

Nobody in their right mind would sign off on that.

Last chance to get lost from this thread and discuss your endless Palestine in the right threads.


The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[Sixties Fan]

Scared of arachnids? Go watch Spider-Man, Israeli study says

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel: Helping To Make A Better World
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That would be incorrect for the entirety of the prior under discussion.

◈ The Arab Palestinians wanted then, what they wanted in 1948, and what they wanted in 1988, the entirety of the territory, formerly under the Mandate (less Jordan).

Why don't you just say Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Prior to the ✪ Palestine Order in LoN Council - (10 August 1922), the formal definition of the territory sometimes referred to as "Palestine" had not been established.

The ✪ Palestine Order in LoN Council - (10 August 1922), for the period of the Mandate, made the following definition:

This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

This definition, came into existance ≈ two years prior to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) which did not quibble over the definition, but instead, lumped it into the Vilayet of Syria.

In 1922 the Allied Powers have not yet made the determination on the full demarcation. The Allied Powers entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration "of the territory of Palestine," which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.

At the end of the Mandate, and transfer from the Mandate Program to theTrustee Program, the territory "formerly known and defined by the Allied Powers," had been partitioned ith the Israelis accepting the recommendation of the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was replaced by the State of Israel by the self-determination of the National Council (representing the Jewish People of Palestine and the Zionist Movement) established the Jewish State as defined in Part II - Boundaries → Section "B" - The Jewish State → UN Resolution 181 (II). Whereas, the remainder of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was formerly rejected and found unacceptable by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) representing the Arab Palestinians.

Thus, of the territory, using the very same naming convention still in use today (former Republic of Zaire → Democratic Republic of the Congo, the former Yugoslavia (SFRY) → Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Vojvodina and Slovenia, the former Soviet Union (FSU) → now divided into 15 States) and the territory became Israel and the non-self-governing territories until the annexation by Jordan.

Your definition of Palestine (undated and undefined) and your usage of the term only goes to add chaos and confusion. This is especially true when the argument over the meaning of the present-day use of the term "State of Palestine" which is NOT the Palestine of 1922. And the Sovereignty of Palestine, which is the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, less Areas "B" and "C" since they are not totally self-governing.

So, unlike you, I try to keep some clarity in my commentary by using the best terminology given the perception of that period under discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel: Helping To Make A Better World
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians had no "national and political rights." They were only guaranteed as having "the civil and religious rights as non-Jewish communities" covered by the Mandate.

◈ The Arab Palestinians refused to recognize The Balfour Declaration, San Remo Convention, the associated Mandate; or any situation arising or derived therefrom.

That wrote them out of national and political rights.

Nobody in their right mind would sign off on that.

(COMMENT)

National and Political Rights did not apply to the Arab Palestinians for another half-century (plus) after the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate:

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
entered into force 23 March 1976

◈ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
entered into force 3 January 1976​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Israel: Helping To Make A Better World
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians had no "national and political rights." They were only guaranteed as having "the civil and religious rights as non-Jewish communities" covered by the Mandate.

◈ The Arab Palestinians refused to recognize The Balfour Declaration, San Remo Convention, the associated Mandate; or any situation arising or derived therefrom.

That wrote them out of national and political rights.

Nobody in their right mind would sign off on that.

(COMMENT)

National and Political Rights did not apply to the Arab Palestinians for another half-century (plus) after the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate:

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
entered into force 23 March 1976

◈ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
entered into force 3 January 1976​

Most Respectfully,
R

Continue this discussion with Tinmore here

The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate


Thank you

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yeah, you certainly like this term "bantustan." It implies an example of "apartheid" administration.

Understanding bantustans and apartheid.

RE: Israel: Helping To Make A Better World
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians had no "national and political rights." They were only guaranteed as having "the civil and religious rights as non-Jewish communities" covered by the Mandate.

◈ The Arab Palestinians refused to recognize The Balfour Declaration, San Remo Convention, the associated Mandate; or any situation arising or derived therefrom.

That wrote them out of national and political rights.

Nobody in their right mind would sign off on that.

(COMMENT)

National and Political Rights did not apply to the Arab Palestinians for another half-century (plus) after the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate:

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
entered into force 23 March 1976

◈ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
entered into force 3 January 1976​

Most Respectfully,
R

Continue this discussion with Tinmore here

The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate


Thank you

Good idea, RoccoR. Move you stuff here.

The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[MJB12741]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israel is Turning the Desert into A Paradise with This Invention

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israeli Invents Device That Can Test Pesticide Residues on Food in Real Time - The Tower

 

[MJB12741]

Doxil (Caelyx) for Treatment of Cancer

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

FDA approves 1st generic nasal spray to treat opioid overdose

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

Healthy.io uses your smartphone's camera for medical lab testing at home