Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN. The Covenant promises the Arab Palestinian nothing. They were not a party to the Covenant.

Indeed, and that went to the LoN who held it in trust for the inhabitants through the Mandate system.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate, and even the Treaty of Lausanne were all written by the very same victorious Allied Powers. These documents were written for and between the parties to the agreements. They were not written for the Arab Palestinians to interpret and use. The LoN Covenant when the Arab Palestinians were still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. The Arab Palestinians were represented by the Central Powers; not the Allied Powers. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, one of the Enemy Empires of the Central Powers, renounced the Title and Rights to the territory in question. So, in a way, the representative of the Sovereign Power that represented the Arab Palestinians, placed the Title and Rights in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were the "inhabitants" referred to in Article of the Covenant of the League of Nations. None of your smoke and mirrors changes that.

"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...."

Quit making things up Rocco, we have got your number.

So where does it say it only applies to arab muslims and Roman catholic Christians ? Didnt the Jews warrant a mention, other than the granting of 22% of palestine as their national home ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.

So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

However you choose to misinterpret what I said, you did get one part right. What we call today the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the Covenant; nether bound by it or promised anything by it.

The Covenant was an agreement between several parties that negotiated what was to become of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territories, among other issues.

(COMMENT)

Yes, among other thing, the Covenant was between the parties to the agreement. "The inhabitants of the former Turkish territories" were not parties to the Covenant.

Your bullshit Rocco, would mean that one of the signers of the Charter of the United Nations could decide that they would disregard an article within the Charter. That is not the case. You are just blowing smoke, as usual.

(COMMENT)

That is not what I said at all.

We were not discussing "exceptions" to a treaty/Charter, or a nation --- exercising its national sovereignty ---having the right to withdraw from the Treaty/Charter if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. That is an entirely different subject.

BUT AGAIN, without regard to your confusion, those who are bound by the Charter have an obligation between themselves. The members under the Charter have no obligation to states outside the Charter; only to it fellow members bound by the charter. Even today, while the State of Palestine is recognized as an observer nation, it is not a member under the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.

So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.

So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

However you choose to misinterpret what I said, you did get one part right. What we call today the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the Covenant; nether bound by it or promised anything by it.

The Covenant was an agreement between several parties that negotiated what was to become of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territories, among other issues.

(COMMENT)

Yes, among other thing, the Covenant was between the parties to the agreement. "The inhabitants of the former Turkish territories" were not parties to the Covenant.

Your bullshit Rocco, would mean that one of the signers of the Charter of the United Nations could decide that they would disregard an article within the Charter. That is not the case. You are just blowing smoke, as usual.

(COMMENT)

That is not what I said at all.

We were not discussing "exceptions" to a treaty/Charter, or a nation --- exercising its national sovereignty ---having the right to withdraw from the Treaty/Charter if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. That is an entirely different subject.

BUT AGAIN, without regard to your confusion, those who are bound by the Charter have an obligation between themselves. The members under the Charter have no obligation to states outside the Charter; only to it fellow members bound by the charter. Even today, while the State of Palestine is recognized as an observer nation, it is not a member under the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.

Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement. The bank need not be a party to the agreement.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.

So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.

That the Jews were the majority of those "people" according to the history books and census taken, meaning the arab muslims are the illegal immigrants with no right to be there. By palestinians you always mean arab muslim, and never Jew showing that you are dead set against any rights ever applying to the Jews, and as you say you can blow all the smoke you want it wont change the facts

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Nice example. I have to chuckle... I have to ask:

•• What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach. The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.

It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.

Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement. The bank need not be a party to the agreement.

(COMMENT)

In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation. Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.

In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation, When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured. The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.

The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers. They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.

Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show. There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.

All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything. Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.

By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action by hold "peace" hostage. IF the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, THEN Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry. Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.

That the Jews were the majority of those "people" according to the history books and census taken, meaning the arab muslims are the illegal immigrants with no right to be there. By palestinians you always mean arab muslim, and never Jew showing that you are dead set against any rights ever applying to the Jews, and as you say you can blow all the smoke you want it wont change the facts

These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, 521 another calculation is required.

The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). 522 In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. 523 These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic -speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. 524 Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians). 525

Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006+8,507)– 2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ 526 (or nearly 99%).

On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. 527 Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in 1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. 528

Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ 529 (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

 

[P F Tinmore]

When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance,...

By constantly demanding their rights only to get poked in the eye by the British.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Nice example. I have to chuckle... I have to ask:

•• What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach. The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.

It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.

Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement. The bank need not be a party to the agreement.

(COMMENT)

In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation. Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.

In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation, When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured. The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.

The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers. They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.

Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show. There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.

All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything. Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.

By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action by hold "peace" hostage. IF the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, THEN Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry. Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.

Most Respectfully,
R

You continue with this nonsensical blabbering. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.

Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate. So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine. You are making things up when you claim otherwise.

".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews. The problem was recognized by the British:

"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.

That the Jews were the majority of those "people" according to the history books and census taken, meaning the arab muslims are the illegal immigrants with no right to be there. By palestinians you always mean arab muslim, and never Jew showing that you are dead set against any rights ever applying to the Jews, and as you say you can blow all the smoke you want it wont change the facts

These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, 521 another calculation is required.

The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). 522 In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. 523 These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic -speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. 524 Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians). 525

Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006+8,507)– 2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ 526 (or nearly 99%).

On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. 527 Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in 1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. 528

Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ 529 (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

And the best you have is a pack of LIES written by an islamonazi propagandist based on his own POV and nothing else. He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance,...

By constantly demanding their rights only to get poked in the eye by the British.

What rights were those, and when where they granted universally to everyone. You cant just wake up one day and state that you have the right to rape children or mass murder the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Nice example. I have to chuckle... I have to ask:

•• What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach. The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.

It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.

Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement. The bank need not be a party to the agreement.

(COMMENT)

In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation. Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.

In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation, When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured. The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.

The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers. They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.

Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show. There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.

All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything. Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.

By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action by hold "peace" hostage. IF the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, THEN Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry. Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.

Most Respectfully,
R

You continue with this nonsensical blabbering. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.

Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate. So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine. You are making things up when you claim otherwise.

".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews. The problem was recognized by the British:

"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.

And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board

 

[P F Tinmore]

He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.

It didn't?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Nice example. I have to chuckle... I have to ask:

•• What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach. The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.

It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.

Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement. The bank need not be a party to the agreement.

(COMMENT)

In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation. Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.

In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation, When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured. The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.

The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers. They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.

Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show. There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.

All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything. Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.

By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action by hold "peace" hostage. IF the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, THEN Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry. Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.

Most Respectfully,
R

You continue with this nonsensical blabbering. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.

Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate. So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine. You are making things up when you claim otherwise.

".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews. The problem was recognized by the British:

"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.

And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board

I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.

Where do you keep getting this shit?

 

[Phoenall]

He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.

It didn't?

Link?

Read it again and see

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Nice example. I have to chuckle... I have to ask:

•• What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach. The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.

It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.

Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement. The bank need not be a party to the agreement.

(COMMENT)

In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation. Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.

In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation, When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured. The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.

The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers. They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.

Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show. There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.

All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything. Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.

By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action by hold "peace" hostage. IF the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, THEN Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry. Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.

Most Respectfully,
R

You continue with this nonsensical blabbering. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.

Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate. So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine. You are making things up when you claim otherwise.

".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews. The problem was recognized by the British:

"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.

And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board

I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.

Where do you keep getting this shit?

From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.

So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.

Pit Stop for Criminal Nomad Gangs

The Arabs weren't residents; they were campers.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is very simple. The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement. Not a third party.

So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers. It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates. Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation. The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you. You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you. In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different. You have not say in the matter. The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you. You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement. You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.

Pit Stop for Criminal Nomad Gangs

The Arabs weren't residents; they were campers.

It doesn't take long for the morons to come out of their holes. Of course the Muslims and Christians were residents, they nearly 100% of the residents.

"148. When the Mandate was approved, all concerned were aware of the existence of an overwhelming Arab majority in Palestine. More over, the King-Crane Report, among others, had warned that the Zionist program could not be carried out except by force of arms. It would seem clear, therefore, that the provisions of the Mandate relating to the Jewish National Home could be based only on the assumption that sooner or later the Arab fears would gradually be overcome and that Arab hostility to the terms of the Mandate would in time weaken and disappear."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3