Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[Hollie]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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 territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Indeed, trustees hold territory in trust for somebody. The Mandates held the land in trust for the inhabitants i.e. the Palestinians. No foreigners were mentioned.

The Jewish people are not foreigners in their own land. The Jewish people were not only INCLUDED in the designation of “Palestinians”, they were specifically recognized.

When exactly did Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, etc. magically become “Pal’istanians”?

As meant by a distinct people with rights to self-determination? Developed in the 1970s and 1980s. They certainly had it by 1988 when they declared independence. Even if they had no means to bring that about. As a people, they existed definitively by then.

I see it differently in the sense that I don’t find the hallmarks of a unique or distinct culture. For example, such attributes as music, art, literature, a shared sense of “selves”, a society that tends to coalesce around shared goals and objectives, relations with other societies that form mutually beneficial relations are some of the attributes (admittedly a subjective viewpoint), that define “a people”. Much of the history during the 1970s and 1980’s for those calling themselves Palestinians is defined by warring street gangs, infighting between political rivals and the exporting of mass murder / suicide. Let’s remember that Black September in1970 and into 1971 was Arafat’s PLO warring with Jordanian forces.

Palestinian warring street gangs are little different today with Hamas and Fatah on the event horizon of another civil war. I really see very little that defines a cohesive culture when there are two, very different, utterly hostile and antagonistic factions, both looking for control of fiefdoms.

 

[Hollie]

When did the Israelis "Acquire any Palestinian Territory by force?"

1948

1948 was the invasion by the combined Arab armies.

Hey wait a minute. I thought it wasn’t legal to acquire land by force.

I’m sure our friend PF Tinmore has already convinced himself that Arabs-Moslems have exclusive entitlements.

 

[Shusha]

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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 territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Indeed, trustees hold territory in trust for somebody. The Mandates held the land in trust for the inhabitants i.e. the Palestinians. No foreigners were mentioned.

The Jewish people are not foreigners in their own land. The Jewish people were not only INCLUDED in the designation of “Palestinians”, they were specifically recognized.

When exactly did Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, etc. magically become “Pal’istanians”?

As meant by a distinct people with rights to self-determination? Developed in the 1970s and 1980s. They certainly had it by 1988 when they declared independence. Even if they had no means to bring that about. As a people, they existed definitively by then.

I see it differently in the sense that I don’t find the hallmarks of a unique or distinct culture. For example, such attributes as music, art, literature, a shared sense of “selves”, a society that tends to coalesce around shared goals and objectives, relations with other societies that form mutually beneficial relations are some of the attributes (admittedly a subjective viewpoint), that define “a people”. Much of the history during the 1970s and 1980’s for those calling themselves Palestinians is defined by warring street gangs, infighting between political rivals and the exporting of mass murder / suicide. Let’s remember that Black September in1970 and into 1971 was Arafat’s PLO warring with Jordanian forces.

Palestinian warring street gangs are little different today with Hamas and Fatah on the event horizon of another civil war. I really see very little that defines a cohesive culture when there are two, very different, utterly hostile and antagonistic factions, both looking for control of fiefdoms.

I don’t at all disagree with you. But at this point they are distinct enough from Israel and from Jordan that I don’t see any alternative than to recognize them as a distinct people , poor as that distinction is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination.

Palestinians were Palestinians without distinction. There were no different groups of citizens. They were all just one people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?

You should have advised the combined Arab-Islamist armies of that.

Are you confused?

You should have advised the combined Arab-Islamist armies of that.

None of them were at war with Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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 territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Indeed, trustees hold territory in trust for somebody. The Mandates held the land in trust for the inhabitants i.e. the Palestinians. No foreigners were mentioned.

The Jewish people are not foreigners in their own land. The Jewish people were not only INCLUDED in the designation of “Palestinians”, they were specifically recognized.

Immigrating Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. Until then they were not Palestinians.

 

[Shusha]

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination.

Palestinians were Palestinians without distinction. There were no different groups of citizens. They were all just one people.

Don’t be naive.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?

You should have advised the combined Arab-Islamist armies of that.

Are you confused?

You should have advised the combined Arab-Islamist armies of that.

None of them were at war with Palestine.

They were at war with the Jews of Palestine. If there was no distinction, as you just said, then they were certainly at war with Palestine.

 

[rylah]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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 territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Indeed, trustees hold territory in trust for somebody. The Mandates held the land in trust for the inhabitants i.e. the Palestinians. No foreigners were mentioned.

The Jewish people are not foreigners in their own land. The Jewish people were not only INCLUDED in the designation of “Palestinians”, they were specifically recognized.

Immigrating Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. Until then they were not Palestinians.

Immigrating and local Jews have the sovereign right to rename their nation state back to its original name.
The name Eretz Yisrael was also used in official notes of the Mandatory Palestine.

War on Palestine was an Arab war on Jews, the boycott of Palestine was initiated by the Arabs as solely boycott of Jews and identified as such. The assaults against the Jewish minority didn't start as result of immigration, as there were waves of pogroms preceding the first one.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have this quite wrong again.

When did the Israelis "Acquire any Palestinian Territory by force?"

1948

(REFERENCE)

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nationsthan until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

BLUE BOOK - Question of Palestine
The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949: On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

(COMMENT)

The Arab League did not abide by "use of force" concepts any more than the Arab Palestinians bothered to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

Just because the Arab League, supported by their Major Allied Powers (mostly Russian) failed to trash Israel (not just once - not just twice - not just three times), supported by its Major Power, does not mean it has grounds for a cause for either legal or military action.

The Israelis followed the UN Speical Committee on Palestine recommendations and the regiment of "Steps Preparatory for Independence. The Arab League, less that 24 hours after Declaring Independence, the Arab League attempted to intervene and crush the Israeli. After failing to interfere with the Jewish act of self-determination (in violation of Article 1(2) of the UN Charter) they continued to attempt to interfere politically, economically and commercially. Trying twice more to overturn the Israeli self-determination.

What makes anyone think that the Arab League and Arab Palestinians have not been acting vindictively for more than seven decades. What makes anyone think that, not unlike the acts of a chronic juvenile delinquent, the Arab Palestinians have not been intentionally causing disturbances and furthering violence --- then trying to blame it entirely on the Jewish People.

Finally, no matter the complaint to be made by the Arab Palestinian, what gives the Arab Palestinians the right to create the chaos they have (attack on the Olympic Team, various aircraft hijackings, numberous suicide bombings, the takeover of a cruise liner, kidnappings, murder, indiscriminant attacks against civilian establishments and conveyances, etc, etc, ect) and have the audacity to claim that they have every right to intentionally target civilians. To argue that it is entirely legal under the Rule of Law that they be permited to engage in Criminal Acts directed against a State with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

And that is just a thumbnail descriptions of the character of the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ et al,

Be very careful here.

Immigrating Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. Until then they were not Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

This is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. The "Palestine" here is not a Government that the Arab Palestinian maintained.

"From 1922 until the present day (1947), the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. The Arabs of Palestine rejected any part in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

Indeed, they fought Israeli troops in Palestine. Nobody attacked Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ et al,

Be very careful here.

Immigrating Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. Until then they were not Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

This is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. The "Palestine" here is not a Government that the Arab Palestinian maintained.

"From 1922 until the present day (1947), the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. The Arabs of Palestine rejected any part in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

So? What does that have to do with my post?

 

[rylah]

The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

Indeed, they fought Israeli troops in Palestine. Nobody attacked Israel.

First attack was on a Jewish village of Yehiam in the Arab part of the partition.
There were no troops, the Brits had to respond first before Israeli forces arrived.

This was their emblem...the goal was prevention of Jewish independence in any part of the land, annihilation of the Jewish nation and total Arab domination of the middle east.

 

[P F Tinmore]

On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

There was no allotted territory.

Israel was proclaimed by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Israel's "permanent population" was recently imported foreign settlers who did not immigrate into the Palestinian society.

The whole enterprise was funded by foreign money.

 

[Hollie]

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination.

Palestinians were Palestinians without distinction. There were no different groups of citizens. They were all just one people.

Not true. The non-moslem dhimmis were a separate class.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?

You should have advised the combined Arab-Islamist armies of that.

Are you confused?

You should have advised the combined Arab-Islamist armies of that.

None of them were at war with Palestine.

Yes they were.

 

[rylah]

On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

There was no allotted territory.

Israel was proclaimed by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Israel's "permanent population" was recently imported foreign settlers who did not immigrate into the Palestinian society.

The whole enterprise was funded by foreign money.

And so was the non-Jewish population, which by the way spoke much more foreign languages,
and was at a continuous tribal war. So were the feudal nobility that received the foreign currency as the Empire that issued the local currency fell.

You're using the term "foreign" selectively by ethnic criteria.

 

[Hollie]

On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

There was no allotted territory.

Israel was proclaimed by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Israel's "permanent population" was recently imported foreign settlers who did not immigrate into the Palestinian society.

The whole enterprise was funded by foreign money.

Indeed, as foreign, absentee land owners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon controlled large portions of the land in your “Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land”.

Much of the Islamist enterprise was funded by foreign money.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination.

Palestinians were Palestinians without distinction. There were no different groups of citizens. They were all just one people.

Not true. The non-moslem dhimmis were a separate class.

link?