Palestinian Statehood...

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

There seems to be some confusion here.

Rocco, your first premise is wrong....The Arabs were right not to go to a meeting to give up their homes...

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan had to do with sovereignty, and nothing to do with land ownership. The Partition Plan did not stipulate the lost of any personal or private property.

The human injustice of the Western Power Politics was criminal in my view...Sure Jews were persecuted horrendously in Europe, it is also rising in Europe as we speak, but the Arabs had nothing to do with these atrocities...

It was a simple land grab by force and still is...

(COMMENT)

Western Powers --- criminal. OK, that is your perspective.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It doesn't.

Rocco,
Where does it say that a people need to get permission from the UN for anything?

(COMMENT)

The All Palestine Government (APG) cable of 28 September, 1948, which declared independence over the entire territory and on the basis of "ownership," was noted and filed with no action.

It was clear that they (APG) were not asking for recognition and received none. The action by the APG was clearly in defiance of the Resolution and in anticipation of a swift Arab military victory.

Most Respectfully,
R

A state has the right to exist and defend itself without recognition.

By September 1948 resolution 181 was long dead.

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

There seems to be some confusion here.

Rocco, your first premise is wrong....The Arabs were right not to go to a meeting to give up their homes...

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan had to do with sovereignty, and nothing to do with land ownership. The Partition Plan did not stipulate the lost of any personal or private property.

The human injustice of the Western Power Politics was criminal in my view...Sure Jews were persecuted horrendously in Europe, it is also rising in Europe as we speak, but the Arabs had nothing to do with these atrocities...

It was a simple land grab by force and still is...

(COMMENT)

Western Powers --- criminal. OK, that is your perspective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Denying the right to self determination is illegal.

Those who deny those rights are criminals.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We agree on a few points here.

The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did.

(COMMENT)

That they did. I agree.

Britain, the mandate at the time, would not implement the plan without Palestinian approval. The US also would not and proposed an alternate plan.

(COMMENT)

To an extent. The UK just came out of a war and they did not want to go back into another.

The bottom line is that there was no resolution 181. It didn't happen. Some attempt to drag it out of the grave for political purposes but it has no legal standing.

(COMMENT)

I disagree. That is wholly an unsubstantiated conviction held by Arab-Palestinians that want more then their share of sovereign territory. It is a position held by the Hostile Arab Higher Committee before Israel declared independence, and it is a position held by nearly all the Jihadist and Fedayeen.

But the existence and legitimacy of GA/RES/181(II) is an on again, off again, affair with the Hostile Arab Palestinians. The line "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947," appears in nearly every resolution pertaining to Palestinians, including the more recent upgrade in status, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 ---> 11/29/2012 A/RES/67/19.

Believe what you will.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

Billo_Really, et al,

Many people are of a like mind. It doesn't make it so.

I recognize 181 was merely a "recommendation" and carry's no legal weight whatsoever.

I also recognize Zionists stood up in 1948 and declared themselves a sovereign nation in an area where they only owned 7% of the land.

(COMMENT)

Here again, is the faulty association between land ownership and sovereignty.

Believe what you will. It doesn't make you right. But remember, when the Resolution was used by the Palestinians, it was effect.

Most Respectfully,
R

You can't move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

You should tell the Arab invaders that.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who denied the right of self-determination of the Palestinians.

Denying the right to self determination is illegal.

Those who deny those rights are criminals.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians, wanting the entire landscape, declined to participate, and opted to conflict.

The choices have consequences. If you want to think of the Allied Powers as criminals, then so be it.

All it takes is a reasonable attitude, a good faith effort, and a willingness to respect and acknowledgment the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel. (AKA: Peace)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We agree on a few points here.

The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did.

(COMMENT)

That they did. I agree.

Britain, the mandate at the time, would not implement the plan without Palestinian approval. The US also would not and proposed an alternate plan.

(COMMENT)

To an extent. The UK just came out of a war and they did not want to go back into another.

Not completely true. In Britain's 1939 white paper it stated that they would not impose a Jewish state in Palestine against their will. This was a long held position that complies with international law.

The bottom line is that there was no resolution 181. It didn't happen. Some attempt to drag it out of the grave for political purposes but it has no legal standing.

(COMMENT)

I disagree. That is wholly an unsubstantiated conviction held by Arab-Palestinians that want more then their share of sovereign territory. It is a position held by the Hostile Arab Higher Committee before Israel declared independence, and it is a position held by nearly all the Jihadist and Fedayeen.

The Palestinians declared independence on their own land inside their own already existing borders. What makes you believe that is more than their fair share?

But the existence and legitimacy of GA/RES/181(II) is an on again, off again, affair with the Hostile Arab Palestinians. The line "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947," appears in nearly every resolution pertaining to Palestinians, including the more recent upgrade in status, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 ---> 11/29/2012 A/RES/67/19.

Some attempt to drag it out of the grave for political purposes but it has no legal standing.

Indeed.

Believe what you will.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who denied the right of self-determination of the Palestinians.

Who has their fat ass parked in Palestine with guns?

Denying the right to self determination is illegal.

Those who deny those rights are criminals.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians, wanting the entire landscape, declined to participate, and opted to conflict.

Do you mean that the Palestinians wanted all of the land inside their already existing international borders and when someone tried to take it they opted to defended themselves?

The choices have consequences. If you want to think of the Allied Powers as criminals, then so be it.

All it takes is a reasonable attitude, a good faith effort, and a willingness to respect and acknowledgment the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel. (AKA: Peace)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[docmauser1]

I also recognize Zionists stood up in 1948 and declared themselves a sovereign nation in an area where they only owned 7% of the land.

No doubt arabs firmly believe this idiocy, but as of 1947, 7% of the land of west palestine was owned by jews. 7-8% was owned by arabs. 16% was owned by absentee landlords, mostly churches. The remainder was state lands, owned first by the sultan and after that - by the british government of palestine, of course.

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who denied the right of self-determination of the Palestinians.

Denying the right to self determination is illegal.

Those who deny those rights are criminals.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians, wanting the entire landscape, declined to participate, and opted to conflict.

The choices have consequences. If you want to think of the Allied Powers as criminals, then so be it.
All it takes is a reasonable attitude, a good faith effort, and a willingness to respect and acknowledgment the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel. (AKA: Peace)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Brits were and still are Criminals who still have Colonies and fill their museums with stolen Art....

 

[docmauser1]

Do you mean that the Palestinians wanted all of the land inside their already existing international borders and when someone tried to take it they opted to defended themselves?

So, who was that emir, pasha, effendi, sultan, president, prime-minister of that land to have international borders? Well?

 

[Kondor3]

If Israeli's are allowed to have their state, it's only fair that the Pals are allowed to have theirs.

They have one already. It's called Jordan.

 

[Kondor3]

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that these court decisions are being accurately relayed to us here.

It should also come as no surprise that the Jews of Israel decided not to accept the jurisdiction of such courts and decisions in this matter.

After all, the International Court in The Hague could rule that I am guilty of parking on the wrong side of the street years ago while I was stationed in Germany, and sentence me to a fine of €20, plus another €200 in interest accumulated over the years, but that doesn't mean that they have jurisdiction over me in the matter nor does it mean that I am obliged to accept their judgment.

Besides, repeated Israeli victories on the battlefield effectively negated and set aside all that old legal claptrap, which may still sit on the books in some quarters, but which has not been operative in the Real World since the time of its renderings.

 

[Billo_Really]

They have one already. It's called Jordan.

Wrong!

Their state is the West Bank, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

 

[Billo_Really]

No doubt arabs firmly believe this idiocy, but as of 1947, 7% of the land of west palestine was owned by jews. 7-8% was owned by arabs. 16% was owned by absentee landlords, mostly churches. The remainder was state lands, owned first by the sultan and after that - by the british government of palestine, of course.

Nope.

Land records at the time showed they owned just 7% of the land.

 

[docmauser1]

No doubt arabs firmly believe this idiocy, but as of 1947, 7% of the land of west palestine was owned by jews. 7-8% was owned by arabs. 16% was owned by absentee landlords, mostly churches. The remainder was state lands, owned first by the sultan and after that - by the british government of palestine, of course.

Nope. Land records at the time showed they owned just 7% of the land.

Are we cutting the hoi polloi arab ownership stake from 7-8% to simply 7%?

 

[Kondor3]

They have one already. It's called Jordan.

Wrong!

Their state is the West Bank, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

I was under the impression that the Golan Heights formerly belonged to Syria, not Palestine. Perhaps I'm wrong.

In any event, within the boundaries of the White (Jewish) Zone on the map of the 1922 Partition Plan for Palestine...

...the Palestinians have some measure of autonomy over just as much land as Israeli force of arms allows the Palestinians to have.

Israel is never going to give-up the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.

Other fragments may or may not prove negotiable over time.

But it's a good bet that, given the continually shrinking land-mass that constitutes the West Bank portion of Rump Palestine, that there will be no Palestinians in the former West Bank territories within the next decade or two.

And, of course, when the Israelis finish-off the West Bank, they'll turn their attention to Gaza.

Given the current extreme weakness of all of Israel's Muslim-Arab neighbor-countries, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see Israel accelerate this process.

Striking while the iron is hot, before the window-of-opportunity begins to close.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, there is something here that needs clarification in the timeline.

Not completely true. In Britain's 1939 white paper it stated that they would not impose a Jewish state in Palestine against their will. This was a long held position that complies with international law.

(COMMENT)

The 1939 White Paper is not something that can stand on its own. It was flawed in terms of the Mandatory's (UK) intention and that of the Permanent Mandates Commission. This was bought out in:

The White Paper of May 1939​

102. The statement of policy issued by His Majesty’s government in May 1939, was intended to put an end to uncertainty as to the objectives of their policy in Palestine, and to prepare the way for the termination of the Mandate. The statement opened with a clear definition of the attitude of His Majesty’s government towards the maximum claims of both Arabs and Jews. Thus, after quoting the interpretation of the Balfour Declaration contained in the White Paper of 1922, they “now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.”

At the same time they maintained their rejection of the Arab contention that they were pledged, by undertakings given during the war of 1914-18, to grant independence to the Arab population of Palestine:-

“They cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State.”​

103. The objective of His Majesty’s Government was then stated to be

“the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestine State….in which Arabs and Jews share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”​

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”​

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

I have to agree that the Mandatory was more inclined to support a shared government in which the Arab and Jews jointly safeguarded the interests of the other. However, irreconcilable differences prevented that from ever materializing. The manifestation of these differences only became more pronounced and stronger in between the White Paper and the end of the first war. The UK asked the United Nations to consider their report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The UK (as outgoing Mandatory) did not intend recommend any particular solution.

It is not that they opposed a Jewish state in Palestine, the UK could not see any workable solution in which the application of armed force would not be required. The UK did not oppose any particular set of solutions; they opposed any solution with an outcome that would lead to probability of a civil war between the belligerents (Arab vs Jews).

The Palestinians declared independence on their own land inside their own already existing borders. What makes you believe that is more than their fair share?

(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Independence did encompass privately held lands owned by Arabs, it is not true that the Arabs ever had any claim to sovereignty over any of the territory. The territory was ceded by Treaty to the Allied Powers in trust through the Permanent Mandates Commission, which then was assumed by the International Trusteeship System for the administration (Chapter XII, Article 77, of the UN Charter). The borders were established by the Allied Powers and had no relationship to the "ownership of land" to which you speak or any particular cultural tries or Arab tribal control.

The right to self-determination is not unique to the Arab Palestinian. The territory was not unique to the Arab-Palestinian. The territory was ultimately under the governance of the Permanent Mandates Commission and then the International Trusteeship System, and not any Arab Tribal entity or the Arab Higher Committee (without regard to who was pulling their strings).

The right to self-determination is not something like a chit in the pocket. Independence, sovereignty and freedom are not something ultimate on a piece of paper. These are things that cultures and societies fight for and defend. Freedom is not free, you don't get it just because the concept is written on paper. The Israelis earned their right at sovereignty; fought for it, bleed for it, and died for it. It is not something that they are likely to surrender to the Hostile Arab Palestinian that wants something for nothing; to parasitically feed off the prosperity cultivated and earned by others. It is like your web site on International Human Rights Law says:

Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.

SOURCE: IHL obligations in the struggle for self-determination

The current situation and Occupation the Hostile Arab Palestinians experience today are the consequence of more than six decades of botched Arab Leadership and ineffective commercial and economic development of the Arab, through the various wars and intifada promoted and relished by the Palestinian. The Palestinian is the very model of a cascade failure as a culture, a productive people, and government. Their failure to share when they had the chance, has lead them to this end. Now, they will even get less.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that these court decisions are being accurately relayed to us here.

It should also come as no surprise that the Jews of Israel decided not to accept the jurisdiction of such courts and decisions in this matter.

After all, the International Court in The Hague could rule that I am guilty of parking on the wrong side of the street years ago while I was stationed in Germany, and sentence me to a fine of €20, plus another €200 in interest accumulated over the years, but that doesn't mean that they have jurisdiction over me in the matter nor does it mean that I am obliged to accept their judgment.

Besides, repeated Israeli victories on the battlefield effectively negated and set aside all that old legal claptrap, which may still sit on the books in some quarters, but which has not been operative in the Real World since the time of its renderings.

It was this kind power posturing that will eventually negate Israel from the world community...If she doesn't obey the Western controlled power brokers which created her boycotts will bring her to her knees in Sanctions like today's Iran...

Play the gambit and wither.