Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[montelatici]

The Jews should be sent back to where their grandparents and great grand parents came from, Europe. With the Palestinians in their native homeland, Palestine as a single state, we can forget of the huge error that colonizing Palestine with Europeans was.

How can you even pretend, when you are using this language, that your anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism? Any discussion about ethnic cleansing is, frankly, abhorrent. When that ethnic cleansing is restricted to Jews, it is abhorrent and anti-semitic.

If you believe that displacing people is the solution to the conflict, and you want to demonstrate that you are not anti-semitic, then you should be using language which does not include "the Jews". For example: All immigrants and their descendants who were not residents in 1922 must return to their country of origin.

Besides the anti-Semitism implied in monte's statement, that plan is totally unrealistic and inhuman.

There is nothing antisemitic about a desire for invaders to withdraw from the territory they have invaded, however unrealistic. I think the Russians should withdraw from Crimea, that does not mean I am anti-Russian.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You don't get any points for exaggerations.

Proposing that invaders leave territory that they have invaded is positive, however, unrealistic.

(COMMENT)

Pretending that the Israelis "invaded" is simply the fallacy to invoke emotion. The claim of "invasion" by the Jewish people is about as fraudulent as a three-dollar bill.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

You don't get any points for exaggerations.

Proposing that invaders leave territory that they have invaded is positive, however, unrealistic.

(COMMENT)

Pretending that the Israelis "invaded" is simply the fallacy to invoke emotion. The claim of "invasion" by the Jewish people is about as fraudulent as a three-dollar bill.

Most Respectfully,
R

People from one place travel (through the good offices an imperial colonial power militarily occupying said territory) to a territory (on a different continent) with the stated intention of colonizing said territory to rule, as a separate people, over the existing native inhabitants of this territory on another continent.

What is that called?

 

[Shusha]

There is nothing antisemitic about a desire for invaders to withdraw from the territory they have invaded, however unrealistic. I think the Russians should withdraw from Crimea, that does not mean I am anti-Russian.

Then it is easy enough to stop using that language. Just say "all immigrants to Palestine" must withdraw from the territory they immigrated to.

 

[Shusha]

People from one place travel ... to a territory ... with the stated intention of colonizing said territory to rule, as a separate people ....

What is that called?

Right of return. Immigration. Migration. Self-determination. Nationalism. Any of those would work.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...

What is that called?

(ANSWER)

Immigration! Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...

What is that called?

(ANSWER)

Immigration! Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jews imported by the Zionist colonial project were not immigrants.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...

What is that called?

(ANSWER)

Immigration! Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants. It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".

It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected. Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.

 

[Shusha]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...

What is that called?

(ANSWER)

Immigration! Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants. It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".

It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected. Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.

Except that the Jewish people were also inhabitants. With every one of the rights to self-determinations DJ self-government that the Arabs had (actually legally more right). And the Mandatory was required to protect those rights. Including the right to settlement on the land.

Any expense incurred to the Arab population was a direct result of Arab use of violence and acts of military force to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their rights and to prevent the Mandatory from exercising her obligations.

The Arabs in Israel are doing very well. Thriving even.

 

[Shusha]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...

What is that called?

(ANSWER)

Immigration! Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jews imported by the Zionist colonial project were not immigrants.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they were immigrants. You are trying to say that there is a difference between the two men who bought neighbouring farmland in the 1930s. There isn't any. They were both immigrants. And there for similar reasons.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...

What is that called?

(ANSWER)

Immigration! Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants. It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".

It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected. Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.

Except that the Jewish people were also inhabitants. With every one of the rights to self-determinations DJ self-government that the Arabs had (actually legally more right). And the Mandatory was required to protect those rights. Including the right to settlement on the land.

Any expense incurred to the Arab population was a direct result of Arab use of violence and acts of military force to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their rights and to prevent the Mandatory from exercising her obligations.

The Arabs in Israel are doing very well. Thriving even.

The Jewish people that came from Europe were not inhabitants. After decades of invasion, the Jews that inhabited Palestine numbered less that 10% of the population in 1922. The obligation of the Mandatory was to protect the inhabitants. The Mandatory did not protect 90% of them. In fact, it participated in the colonization of the territory by non-inhabitants at the expense of 90% of the inhabitants. The native inhabitants were absolutely correct in attacking the people intent on expropriating them. In fact, had they been more forceful they might have succeeded in repelling the invasion. They had too many within their ranks that believed the British who promised to protect the religious and civil rights of the native people. Big mistake.

 

[Shusha]

The Jewish people that came from Europe were not inhabitants.

Sure, the inhabitants were the inhabitants. If your criteria is only "inhabitants" (such as only those who were residents prior to 1922) should have been protected and brought under tutelage and given self-determination -- then you need to start using that language, instead of using "the Jews". Its not hard. Try it. Repeat after me:

ALL people who immigrated after 1922 are foreign invaders and should be required to return to their country of origin.

Once you've mastered that simple concept, we can discuss whether or not minority populations should have rights or not.

 

[MJB12741]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...

What is that called?

(ANSWER)

Immigration! Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants. It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".

It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected. Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.

Except that the Jewish people were also inhabitants. With every one of the rights to self-determinations DJ self-government that the Arabs had (actually legally more right). And the Mandatory was required to protect those rights. Including the right to settlement on the land.

Any expense incurred to the Arab population was a direct result of Arab use of violence and acts of military force to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their rights and to prevent the Mandatory from exercising her obligations.

The Arabs in Israel are doing very well. Thriving even.

Is anyone aware of even a single Palestinian/Israeli citizen who wants to leave Israel to go live in some Arab country?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Do you enough cheese and bread to go with that whine?

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...

What is that called?

(ANSWER)

Immigration! Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants. It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".

It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected. Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Oh, yes... What a limited mind you have...

The members of the League and the Allied Powers (having the Title and Rights) decide what the intent of Article 22; they wrote it. The Arab Palestinian has no claim under Article 22; they were not a party to the Covenant. In 1947 the UN General Assembly, on the recommendation of the UN Special Committee on Palestine, decided that the outcome should be crafted in the form of Resolution 181 (II). No matter what you might think about Resolution 181 (II), it clearly shows their intent on the matter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant. The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title. As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004

"To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion. This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.

The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant. The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title. As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004

"To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians. Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994, wherein the

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994

​

v/r
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion. This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.

The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant. The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title. As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004

"To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians. Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994, wherein the

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994

View attachment 107479
View attachment 107480
​

v/r
R

Stop your bullshitting. Article 22 of the Covenant is clear as to what is to be done with the inhabitants former Turkish territories. The Jews were in Europe and were not inhabitants.

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion. This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.

The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant. The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title. As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004

"To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians. Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994, wherein the

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994

View attachment 107479
View attachment 107480
​

v/r
R

Stop your bullshitting. Article 22 of the Covenant is clear as to what is to be done with the inhabitants former Turkish territories. The Jews were in Europe and were not inhabitants.

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

What an embarrassing admission on your part. Nothing in the above in an any way supports the comments in your earlier cut and paste that whined:
"The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations"



You just make up this nonsense, oblivious to the fact that you stumble over your own attempt at argument.

 

[MJB12741]

montelatici, et al,

I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion. This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.

The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant. The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title. As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004

"To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians. Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994, wherein the

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994

View attachment 107479
View attachment 107480
​

v/r
R

Stop your bullshitting. Article 22 of the Covenant is clear as to what is to be done with the inhabitants former Turkish territories. The Jews were in Europe and were not inhabitants.

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

What an embarrassing admission on your part. Nothing in the above in an any way supports the comments in your earlier cut and paste that whined:
"The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations"



You just make up this nonsense, oblivious to the fact that you stumble over your own attempt at argument.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion. This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.

The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant. The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title. As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004

"To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians. Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994, wherein the

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994

View attachment 107479
View attachment 107480
​

v/r
R

Stop your bullshitting. Article 22 of the Covenant is clear as to what is to be done with the inhabitants former Turkish territories. The Jews were in Europe and were not inhabitants.

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

What an embarrassing admission on your part. Nothing in the above in an any way supports the comments in your earlier cut and paste that whined:
"The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations"



You just make up this nonsense, oblivious to the fact that you stumble over your own attempt at argument.

I love the guy for keeping us laughing while those he supports are killing Christians & Jews all over the world.

You are laughing about the killing of Christians and Jews? What's the matter with you? And why are you claiming that a Christian, such as myself, who despises Islam would support the killing of Christians?