Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

You hold onto this chart as if it contained the sole determining factors; instead of --- just one consideration out of many.

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."

(COMMENT)

You keep entangling real estate ownership with sovereign control; two completely different notions. The principle objective is putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, and the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. That was part of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.

 

[montelatici]

No, just repeating what the UN stated unequivocally just prior to the partition, the UN stated that the Muslims and Christians owned 85% of the land. I haven't claimed anything about sovereignty.

The creation of this Jewish home was prima facie in contravention of article 22 of the LON Covenant, which stated that the Mandatory's duties were to provide tutelage and hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants. The Jews were in Europe, so were not the inhabitants of Palestine. The Muslims and Christians were 95% or more of the population. The Mandate held that the Jewish home be established but that added that "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" . So, the British not only contravened the Covenant article 22, but contravened the mandate itself, by taking actions that clearly prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.

Even in the partition plan it was clear that the Jewish National Home ran counter to the principle of self-determination. The British, the U.S. and the UN conspired to commit a major crime against the native inhabitants people of Palestine.

"With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is a window in this theory.

The original source of the law is Article 2(4):

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

While this is the common layman interpretation, in reality, this is NOT Contemporary Law. Name a territory in the last century when this worked.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Pro-Palestinians keep harping on these century old decisions and outcomes that they are disappointed with.

What is your Ideal solution that will:

• Appease the Palestinians,
• Will insure the sovereign integrity of Israel, self-determination.
• Will prevent the Arab League from presenting a threat to the Jewish National Home.
• Will allow Jews unrestricted access to the Holy Sites in Jerusalem


Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is a window in this theory.

The original source of the law is Article 2(4):

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

While this is the common layman interpretation, in reality, this is NOT Contemporary Law. Name a territory in the last century when this worked.

Most Respectfully,
R

Name an occupation in the last century that acquired sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Several different scenarios.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is a window in this theory.

The original source of the law is Article 2(4):

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

While this is the common layman interpretation, in reality, this is NOT Contemporary Law. Name a territory in the last century when this worked.

Most Respectfully,
R

Name an occupation in the last century that acquired sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

• Don’t forget about Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and then: Annexation.
• Chinese Invasion and Occupation then Annexation of Tibet.
• Cuba
• Puerto Rico
• Guam
• Phillipines

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

No, just repeating what the UN stated unequivocally just prior to the partition, the UN stated that the Muslims and Christians owned 85% of the land. I haven't claimed anything about sovereignty.

The creation of this Jewish home was prima facie in contravention of article 22 of the LON Covenant, which stated that the Mandatory's duties were to provide tutelage and hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants. The Jews were in Europe, so were not the inhabitants of Palestine. The Muslims and Christians were 95% or more of the population. The Mandate held that the Jewish home be established but that added that "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" . So, the British not only contravened the Covenant article 22, but contravened the mandate itself, by taking actions that clearly prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.

Even in the partition plan it was clear that the Jewish National Home ran counter to the principle of self-determination. The British, the U.S. and the UN conspired to commit a major crime against the native inhabitants people of Palestine.

"With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

Of course, we know from the Ottoman lab for records that your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan" did not own 85% of the land.

While you are hostile to and ignorant of facts, read and learn.

Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.

Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

So the Zionists roll their military across Palestine attacking civilians and running them off their land.

 

[Hollie]

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.

So the Zionists roll their military across Palestine attacking civilians and running them off their land.

Not one of your more entertaining conspiracy theories.

 

[Contumacious]

No, just repeating what the UN stated unequivocally just prior to the partition, the UN stated that the Muslims and Christians owned 85% of the land. I haven't claimed anything about sovereignty.

The creation of this Jewish home was prima facie in contravention of article 22 of the LON Covenant, which stated that the Mandatory's duties were to provide tutelage and hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants. The Jews were in Europe, so were not the inhabitants of Palestine. The Muslims and Christians were 95% or more of the population. The Mandate held that the Jewish home be established but that added that "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" . So, the British not only contravened the Covenant article 22, but contravened the mandate itself, by taking actions that clearly prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.

Even in the partition plan it was clear that the Jewish National Home ran counter to the principle of self-determination. The British, the U.S. and the UN conspired to commit a major crime against the native inhabitants people of Palestine.

"With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

Of course, we know from the Ottoman lab for records that your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan" did not own 85% of the land.

While you are hostile to and ignorant of facts, read and learn.

Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.

Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917.

LINK TO NON-ZIONIST WEBSITES

.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them. How do you know it was not delivered?

• In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?

• In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?

Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.

(COMMENT)

Well, don't worry... It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go back to the standard colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.

Ok then why dont you show what rights they had in 1919 when all this took place.

They had the right to take part in talks and that was it

1907 Hague convention.

That was not a right it was a meeting, try again

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.

(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)

• Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

• 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly

What is a refugee Rocco?

(COMMENT)

As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status. This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).

Why are Palestinians not refugees?

(COMMENT)

This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA. However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility. (Which is a whole other topic.)

By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state.

Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians. They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the de facto guardians of the "Right of Return." (Which is a whole other topic.)

Most Respectfully,
R

You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change. Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."

In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees" This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.

So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.

An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.

And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews. And still you claim it is law when you have been shown it isnt, proving that you dont accept the Jews have any rights and that international laws never work in their favour.

Do the research and see for yourself, if we post links you just ignore them

 

[Phoenall]

And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews.

Link?

Right of return - Wikipedia



The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return, but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]

By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.[3]

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.

(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)

• Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

• 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly

What is a refugee Rocco?

(COMMENT)

As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status. This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).

Why are Palestinians not refugees?

(COMMENT)

This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA. However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility. (Which is a whole other topic.)

By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state.

Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians. They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the de facto guardians of the "Right of Return." (Which is a whole other topic.)

Most Respectfully,
R

You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change. Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."

In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees" This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.

So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.

An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.

Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?

Because they are not from those countries.

Not what their elected leaders say is it

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

You hold onto this chart as if it contained the sole determining factors; instead of --- just one consideration out of many.

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."

(COMMENT)

You keep entangling real estate ownership with sovereign control; two completely different notions. The principle objective is putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, and the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. That was part of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.

They do if it was granted by international law before they took back what is their's

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is a window in this theory.

The original source of the law is Article 2(4):

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

While this is the common layman interpretation, in reality, this is NOT Contemporary Law. Name a territory in the last century when this worked.

Most Respectfully,
R

Name an occupation in the last century that acquired sovereignty.

Former Yugoslavia, Pakistan, Somalia and many more islamic states that have been created in the last century or so

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So the Zionists roll their military across Palestine attacking civilians and running them off their land.

An old worn out tractor and a single barrelled shotgun

 

[Challenger]

• Don’t forget about Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and then: Annexation.
• Chinese Invasion and Occupation then Annexation of Tibet.
• Cuba
• Puerto Rico
• Guam
• Phillipines

You are joking, right?

Crimea is quite complex as you have arguments for Russia re-acquiring sovereignty over a former territory along with the self-determination of the Crimeans themselves; most of the world doesn't recognise Russia's annexation, Crimea is considered occupied territory. Similarly China's annexation of Tibet is contested by the Tibetan government in exile and many consider Tibet illegally occupied. In both cases sovereignty is disputed. Cuba? See Teller Ammendment. Puerto Rico, Guam and the Phillipines were formal transfers of sovereignty by cession, so are irrelevant.

 

[MJB12741]

And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews.

Link?

Right of return - Wikipedia



The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return, but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]

By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.[3]

No Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return. They are quite content on keeping them in Israel for Israel to deal with,

 

[montelatici]

A Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish can only return to Palestine. Other countries are not Palestine. A large part of Palestine was invaded by the European Zionists so they are prevented from returning by said Europeans.