Palestinian Statehood...

[Kondor3]

"...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."

You may very well be proven right, pbel, but that is by no means certain, nor even likely. It appears that the Israelis see this differently and are determined to play a different hand, their way. Given their circumstances, and what failure would mean, I don't blame them for doing it their own way. Unlike you, I see a sufficient number of unprecedented factors in this situation so as to render history an unreliable predictor of the future. But, in truth, only time will tell.

 

[pbel]

"...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."

You may very well be proven right, pbel, but that is by no means certain, nor even likely. It appears that the Israelis see this differently and are determined to play a different hand, their way. Given their circumstances, and what failure would mean, I don't blame them for doing it their own way. Unlike you, I see a sufficient number of unprecedented factors in this situation so as to render history an unreliable predictor of the future. But, in truth, only time will tell.

The simple act by the UN to recognize Palestine as a full non-member state speaks volumes of what Will follow!

 

[docmauser1]

The simple act by the UN to recognize Palestine as a full non-member state speaks volumes of what Will follow!

And what will follow?

 

[Kondor3]

The simple act by the UN to recognize Palestine as a full non-member state speaks volumes of what Will follow!

The list of modern Failed States which had previously obtained LoN or UN recognition or pseudo-recognition is rather long, isn't it? Frankly, and only as a matter of personal opinion, I don't put much stock in that, but that's just me.

 

[pbel]

The simple act by the UN to recognize Palestine as a full non-member state speaks volumes of what Will follow!

And what will follow?

sanctions which have already begun along with divestures.

 

[docmauser1]

The simple act by the UN to recognize Palestine as a full non-member state speaks volumes of what Will follow!

And what will follow?

sanctions which have already begun along with divestures.

Where? When?

 

[Kondor3]

And what will follow?

sanctions which have already begun along with divestures.

Where? When?

I smell another BDS dog-and-pony show coming up...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The problem with some sources is that you don't always get the intent.

Reference: File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment

1. That the concessions granted to M. Mavrommatis under the Agreements signed on January 27th, 1914, between him and the City of Jerusalem, regarding certain works to be carried out at Jerusalem, are valid;

• That the existence, for a certain space of time, of a right on the part of M. Rutenberg to require the annulment of the aforesaid concessions of M. Mavrommatis was not in conformity with the international obligations accepted by the Mandatory for Palestine;
• That no loss to M. Mavrommatis, resulting from this circumstance, has been proved;
• That therefore the Greek Government's claim for an indemnity must be dismissed;

2. That Article 4 of the Protocol signed at Lausanne on July 23rd, 1923, concerning certain concessions granted in the Ottoman Empire, is applicable to the above-mentioned concessions granted to M. Mavrommatis.

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

(OBSERVATION)

Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:

Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650–652​

Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.

I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."

The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK).

Your thoughts?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The problem with some sources is that you don't always get the intent.

Reference: File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment

1. That the concessions granted to M. Mavrommatis under the Agreements signed on January 27th, 1914, between him and the City of Jerusalem, regarding certain works to be carried out at Jerusalem, are valid;

• That the existence, for a certain space of time, of a right on the part of M. Rutenberg to require the annulment of the aforesaid concessions of M. Mavrommatis was not in conformity with the international obligations accepted by the Mandatory for Palestine;
• That no loss to M. Mavrommatis, resulting from this circumstance, has been proved;
• That therefore the Greek Government's claim for an indemnity must be dismissed;

2. That Article 4 of the Protocol signed at Lausanne on July 23rd, 1923, concerning certain concessions granted in the Ottoman Empire, is applicable to the above-mentioned concessions granted to M. Mavrommatis.

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

(OBSERVATION)

Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:

Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650–652​

Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.

I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."

The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK).

Your thoughts?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandatory was not given power of ownership of the Land it was a Trust for the residents living there. In other words England never had the power of ownership, not sovereignty as you state but Administrate powers.

Your legal interpretations needs footnotes to back them up. Of course I too express an opinion.

 

[pbel]

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

Imposing your will on defenseless people with military force like Palestine or Kosovo is Criminal in my view because it is a sin against humanity...The Security Council today as then is controlled by the military industrial corporations and acts as a Dictatorship...

It should be removed from the UN and let the majority in the assembly be able to a least overrule them or be the final arbiter.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The problem with some sources is that you don't always get the intent.

Reference: File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment

1. That the concessions granted to M. Mavrommatis under the Agreements signed on January 27th, 1914, between him and the City of Jerusalem, regarding certain works to be carried out at Jerusalem, are valid;

• That the existence, for a certain space of time, of a right on the part of M. Rutenberg to require the annulment of the aforesaid concessions of M. Mavrommatis was not in conformity with the international obligations accepted by the Mandatory for Palestine;
• That no loss to M. Mavrommatis, resulting from this circumstance, has been proved;
• That therefore the Greek Government's claim for an indemnity must be dismissed;

2. That Article 4 of the Protocol signed at Lausanne on July 23rd, 1923, concerning certain concessions granted in the Ottoman Empire, is applicable to the above-mentioned concessions granted to M. Mavrommatis.

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

(OBSERVATION)

Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:

Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650–652​

Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.

I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."

The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK).

Your thoughts?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandatory was not given power of ownership of the Land it was a Trust for the residents living there. In other words England never had the power of ownership, not sovereignty as you state but Administrate powers.

Your legal interpretations needs footnotes to back them up. Of course I too express an opinion.

That is what the documents tell us. Many things happened between WWI and 1948 like the League of Nations Covenant, the Balfour declaration, the Palestine Mandate, etc.. Nowhere was there mention of an exclusive Jewish state. An exclusive Jewish state was not suggested or authorized anyplace.

The idea of a homeland for the Jews culminated in the Palestine Mandate. There is much misinformation about the mandate.

There is also much misinformation about the UN involvement in the creation of Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I guess I didn't make the point very well.

If you actually read the Judgment, you will find nothing that says: "It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties."

What is implies, and passed judgment on, was the fact that the Mandatory, acting as the government in trust, was (in only certain cases) liable for debts incurred by the Ottoman Empire in the territory.

That is what the documents tell us. Many things happened between WWI and 1948 like the League of Nations Covenant, the Balfour declaration, the Palestine Mandate, etc.. Nowhere was there mention of an exclusive Jewish state. An exclusive Jewish state was not suggested or authorized anyplace.

(COMMENT)

This is correct; we agree. The embedded idea of establishing a "Jewish National Home" does not mean the same thing as "Jewish State." The Jewish State was one way, not the only way, a national home could be established.

An exclusive Jewish state was not suggested or authorized anyplace.

(COMMENT)

Suggested! I'm not sure.

Authorized! It was neither authorized or prohibited. It was a solution to the question of establishment. (How many different ways can you establish a national home?)

There is also much misinformation about the UN involvement in the creation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

True, we agree.

Two points here are important. The first is, the UN did NOT create the Jewish State. The Partition Plan was merely one possible solution by which the intent of establishing a Jewish National Home could be put in effect.

The Jewish Agency, created the State of Israel; in a way that conformed to the recommendations of the UN, and implemented by the Security Council to the extent possible, after the Jewish Agency accepted the recommendation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I guess I didn't make the point very well.

If you actually read the Judgment, you will find nothing that says: "It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties."

What is implies, and passed judgment on, was the fact that the Mandatory, acting as the government in trust, was (in only certain cases) liable for debts incurred by the Ottoman Empire in the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, if you say so even though this makes no sense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is what the documents tell us. Many things happened between WWI and 1948 like the League of Nations Covenant, the Balfour declaration, the Palestine Mandate, etc.. Nowhere was there mention of an exclusive Jewish state. An exclusive Jewish state was not suggested or authorized anyplace.

(COMMENT)

This is correct; we agree. The embedded idea of establishing a "Jewish National Home" does not mean the same thing as "Jewish State." The Jewish State was one way, not the only way, a national home could be established.

OK, but none of them said anything about creating a Jewish state.

Britain was supposed to create a homeland for the Jews but the mandate was a monumental flop. They left Palestine creating nothing but war.

An exclusive Jewish state was not suggested or authorized anyplace.

(COMMENT)

Suggested! I'm not sure.

Authorized! It was neither authorized or prohibited. It was a solution to the question of establishment. (How many different ways can you establish a national home?)

That is correct, however, the prohibition came from international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...That is correct, however, the prohibition came from international law..."

Given that international law failed to protect 6,000,000 of their men, women and children from slaughter, the Jews learned not to put their trust in international law. Big surprise. Not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...That is correct, however, the prohibition came from international law..."

Given that international law failed to protect 6,000,000 of their men, women and children from slaughter, the Jews learned not to put their trust in international law. Big surprise. Not.

Much of international law happened because of that. You would think that Israel would honor that memory.

 

[Kondor3]

"...That is correct, however, the prohibition came from international law..."

Given that international law failed to protect 6,000,000 of their men, women and children from slaughter, the Jews learned not to put their trust in international law. Big surprise. Not.

Much of international law happened because of that. You would think that Israel would honor that memory.

Well, Round 2 or 3 of International Law, anyway.

Everybody else got the chance to seize their little piece of land under the Old Rules.

And then Israel is told that they cannot, because New Rules are in force.

So the Israelis, like so many countries before them, chose to cherry-pick The Law, and ignore it only insofar as establishing their own Homeland was concerned, while abiding by it as best they can, otherwise.

Happens all the time... all up and down the page of history... can't say as I blame the Jews for ignoring such hypocrisy and seizing what they need, before they, too, settle down to a more peace-loving existence.

That doesn't make it right or wrong - it merely makes it consistent with what much of the rest of the world has done before it - and still benefits from - in order to establish their own national space and life.

 

[pbel]

Given that international law failed to protect 6,000,000 of their men, women and children from slaughter, the Jews learned not to put their trust in international law. Big surprise. Not.

Much of international law happened because of that. You would think that Israel would honor that memory.

Well, Round 2 or 3 of International Law, anyway.

Everybody else got the chance to seize their little piece of land under the Old Rules.

And then Israel is told that they cannot, because New Rules are in force.

So the Israelis, like so many countries before them, chose to cherry-pick The Law, and ignore it only insofar as establishing their own Homeland was concerned, while abiding by it as best they can, otherwise.

Happens all the time... all up and down the page of history... can't say as I blame the Jews for ignoring such hypocrisy and seizing what they need, before they, too, settle down to a more peace-loving existence.

That doesn't make it right or wrong - it merely makes it consistent with what much of the rest of the world has done before it - and still benefits from - in order to establish their own national space and life.

I surely understand why the Jewish people of the world need a safe-haven. For too many centuries they have suffered in the hands of Christian Europe...What I don't understand why they so persecute the Palestinians who lived peacefully with them in Palestine for centuries.

The problem today is that they are now the aggressors and the International Laws that were inspired by much of the Holocaust is used against them to save the Palestinians...

The irony is unbelievable. Tx. Tinnie.

 

[docmauser1]

I surely understand why the Jewish people of the world need a safe-haven. For too many centuries they have suffered in the hands of Christian Europe...What I don't understand why they so persecute the Palestinians who lived peacefully with them in Palestine for centuries.

Oh, that's simple. What's a palistanian without persecution and occupation? Just a general arab without the UNRWA, of course. Hence the "persecution" babble. Really simple, isn't it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Given that international law failed to protect 6,000,000 of their men, women and children from slaughter, the Jews learned not to put their trust in international law. Big surprise. Not.

Much of international law happened because of that. You would think that Israel would honor that memory.

Well, Round 2 or 3 of International Law, anyway.

Everybody else got the chance to seize their little piece of land under the Old Rules.

And then Israel is told that they cannot, because New Rules are in force.

So the Israelis, like so many countries before them, chose to cherry-pick The Law, and ignore it only insofar as establishing their own Homeland was concerned, while abiding by it as best they can, otherwise.

Happens all the time... all up and down the page of history... can't say as I blame the Jews for ignoring such hypocrisy and seizing what they need, before they, too, settle down to a more peace-loving existence.

That doesn't make it right or wrong - it merely makes it consistent with what much of the rest of the world has done before it - and still benefits from - in order to establish their own national space and life.

Israel is approaching challenging times. Israel was created in Palestine as most of the documents state. This puts the Palestinians on the legal and moral high ground.

There is a growing world chorus demanding the restoration of the Palestinian's legal rights. Israel views this as an existential threat.