Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, MJB12741, et al,

In November 1988, the Arab Palestinians DID exercise the right of self-determination. But that was not the first time.

(COMMENT)

Under the Mandate and the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Arab component to the citizenry of the territory to which the Mandate applied, rejected, on at least three occasions prior to 1924, the opportunity to participate in Article 22(2) Tutelage and the direct participation in the development of self-governing institutions. This, in itself, was a barrier to self-determination.

Again, in January 1948, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the Step Preparatory to Independence.
In April 1950, the Arab Palestinians DID participate in self-determination by actively engaging the Jordanian Parliament in the determination as to whether to be annexed or not.

After biting the hand that fed them, the Arab Palestinians announced a Declaration of Independence in November 1988. this was, another example of self-determination.

Don't pretend that the political bungling of the Arab Palestinian was, for an instant, the fault of the Israelis. It was not. If there was a fault in the exercise of self-determination and self-governance, it was the fault of the Arab Palestinian that was not then (from 1920 to 1988) incompetent to make a self-governing state for themselves a reality; when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

the citizenry of the territory to which the Mandate applied, rejected, on at least three occasions prior to 1924, the opportunity to participate in Article 22(2)

Indeed, they consistently refused to sign onto the colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.

Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I understand that you know it all, but in this case, you fall a little short of being correct. Nowhere in the exchange does the Colonial Secretary prevent the Arab Delegation in the matter of self-determination.

(COMMENT)

If the people are going to make a determination, then they must have some means to carry it out. But in this case, there was no determination made, and no means to extend sovereignty. Thus, if anyone stopped the right of the Arab Palestinians, it was the Arab Palestinians themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were stopped by the British. It is clear in the correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation to London and the British Colonial Office. To wit:

"Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."​

The Colonial Office's answer:

"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people.
​

The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish colony in Palestine. So Rocco, stop making absurd assertions that have no basis in historical fact.

(COMMENT)

It might be interesting to note that what the Colonial Secretary Churchill said did not prevent, in any way, the ability of the Arab Palestinian people to make determinations in their own behalf (self-determination). But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.

Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter what the reason may have been, no matter how valid you think the reason was, the fact of the matter is that they declined to activity participate in the process. That was a consequence of their decision.

the citizenry of the territory to which the Mandate applied, rejected, on at least three occasions prior to 1924, the opportunity to participate in Article 22(2)

Indeed, they consistently refused to sign onto the colonial project.

(COMMENT)

While the criteria of the Covenant today is no longer an issue, it should be noted that another intended criteria, which has never been met, is the Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone." They had not reached that point then, and they have not reached that point even today.

In most compacts, once an opportunity is declined, the further need to request participation, cooperation and assistance (on either side) is no longer required. It is only by due diligence that the Colonial Office even bothered to ask more than once (a half-dozen times or more).

Every nation has to face the consequences of their decisions. It is only the Arab Palestinian that want everything and no responsibility for failure or adverse consequence. TOO Bad!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, they consistently refused to sign onto the colonial project.

The refusal to "sign on to the colonial project" in no way restricts their own self-determination. In fact, this is the entire fallacy you are constantly chasing. The acceptance of Jewish self-determination does not deny Palestinian self-determination. There is no either/or here.

Its not a zero sum game.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the Mandates were under the same type of administration, whether that have been the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration, the Mandate A type Administration and government, or the post-1948-49 Arab League invasion and occupation.

when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.

Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.

(COMMENT)

Remember, when the 1949 Armistice kicked-in, the Jordanians (Arab League) occupied the West Bank and the Egyptian (Arab League) occupied the Gaza Strip. That remained until 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.

Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.

The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.

The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."

Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is only by due diligence that the Colonial Office even bothered to ask more than once (a half-dozen times or more).

"Colonial Office" is the key.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an independent determination made by the Arab Palestinians.

But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.

Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.

The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.

The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.

(COMMENT)

No where in the Covenant do the Authors of the decision to promote the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home, who happen to be the same Authors of the Covenant, draw the same connection that you make here. In fact, there is no conflict. That is just Arab Political soup to further their agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All the Mandates were under the same type of administration, whether that have been the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration, the Mandate A type Administration and government, or the post-1948-49 Arab League invasion and occupation.

when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.

Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.

(COMMENT)

Remember, when the 1949 Armistice kicked-in, the Jordanians (Arab League) occupied the West Bank and the Egyptian (Arab League) occupied the Gaza Strip. That remained until 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't mention that the Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an independent determination made by the Arab Palestinians.

But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.

Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.

The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.

The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.

(COMMENT)

No where in the Covenant do the Authors of the decision to promote the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home, who happen to be the same Authors of the Covenant, draw the same connection that you make here. In fact, there is no conflict. That is just Arab Political soup to further their agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a conflict. You just can't see it through your Israel colored glasses.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just ridiculous.

It is only by due diligence that the Colonial Office even bothered to ask more than once (a half-dozen times or more).

"Colonial Office" is the key.

(COMMENT)

I gather from this you do not understand the reasoning for the Mandates to be placed under the Colonial Office. But I don't have time to teach you governmental affairs. Let's just say that the deficiency you exhibit here is the very same reason and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.

And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This "CAN'T DO" attitude is very prevalent in the Arab Palestinian world.

Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."

Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.

(COMMENT)

I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians. The greater security countermeasures and barriers are all 21st Century implementations.

The Arab Palestinians wasted 33 years of time when the stricter 21st Century countermeasures were not in place. But the Arab Palestinians were focused on strictly violence.

As violence increased, the need to develpo more stringent security measures increased. That is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to pursue violence as opposed to positive development projects.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians.

How many minutes has Palestine not been under occupation since 1917?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This "CAN'T DO" attitude is very prevalent in the Arab Palestinian world.

Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."

Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.

(COMMENT)

I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians. The greater security countermeasures and barriers are all 21st Century implementations.

The Arab Palestinians wasted 33 years of time when the stricter 21st Century countermeasures were not in place. But the Arab Palestinians were focused on strictly violence.

As violence increased, the need to develpo more stringent security measures increased. That is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to pursue violence as opposed to positive development projects.

Most Respectfully,
R

Blah, blah, blah, more Israeli talking points.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another one of those Arab Palestinian Victim complaints.

You didn't mention that the Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

I did not forget it at all.

BUT REMEMBER! The Armistice Agreements were a temporary solution to the Arab League Aggressor Attack in contravention to Article 1(2) (Self-determination), Article 2(3) (Peaceful Settlement of Disputes), and the Article 2(4) (use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence). And the consequence of such aggressor action is the Internatal Defense and Development under Article 51 (inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack).

The division were a product of the invading Arab Forces, NOT the defender -- Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

At every offer, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.

and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.

And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.

(COMMENT)

They Arab Palestinians declined to participate through the entire Mandate period, and they declined today.

It is who they are... Belligerent, Uncooperative, Abusive and Violent... (BUAV)

Most Respectfully,
R