Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[toastman]

Tinmore, you have the right to disagree with Rocco.
But for Christ’s sake, the very least you can do is present a valid argument backed up by valid links!

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

I rest my case.

Good choice as you never presented a coherent, defendable case to begin with.

Sorry it went over your head.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

 

[toastman]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

Your point? I’m guessing you don’t have one.

I’m starting to lose count over the amount of times Rocco has destroyed your arguments.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

Your point? I’m guessing you don’t have one.

I’m starting to lose count over the amount of times Rocco has destroyed your arguments.

Try zero.

 

[Hollie]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

I rest my case.

Good choice as you never presented a coherent, defendable case to begin with.

Sorry it went over your head.

You confuse mindlessly cutting nd pasting the same few snippets with a coherent, defendable argument.

 

[Hollie]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

You’re still proceeding on a false premise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

You’re still proceeding on a false premise.

Look it up.

 

[RoccoR]

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

OH now you are really reaching.

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The parties to the Treaty are identified in the Preamble; → Who, having produced their full powers, found in good and due orm, have agreed

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

You’re still proceeding on a false premise.

Look it up.

I would expect you to do that. Your false premise is easily corrected if you take the time to learn the facts.

 

[Shusha]

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people who, as a collective, had the legal right to become one of those independent States mentioned in the LoN Covenant and who had the right to territorial integrity without aggression and external interference.

The LoN Covenant upholds the premise that "interference" in the form of tutelage by advanced nations for those preparing for independence is not only permitted, but is a sacred trust of civilization.

 

[Hollie]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

When I post:

The people have the right to self determination without external interference.​

Rocco responds with a whole page of external interference.

(COMMENT)

If it was as simple as you make it out so be,

When the decisions were made a century ago, all that was discussed was found in League of Nations (LoN) Covenant:

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

It should be noted that this is very similar - but not quite the same to the words in the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It should be noted that the Allied Powers (having been appointed with the rights and title thru Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne) were obstructed by the Arab League (formerly the inhabitance of the Enemy Occupied Territory (EOT) in the post WWI era) in the establishment of self-governing institution; a necessary first step towards independence.

The inhabitance of the EOT were not a party to the Peace Treaty process. The inhabitance of the EOT were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (outside the Turkish Republic) when it released its hold on the sovereignty to the territory. The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Anything the Allied Powers did in the interest of those territories (Palestine being a relatively small piece in comparison to the other pieces that needed to be dealt with) was not an external power. They were the legitimate holders of the "rights and title" to the territory. And without regard to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance, the fate of the territory rested in the hands of the Allied Powers.

To this day, the Arab Palestinians have yet to make a claim and then explain the mechanism through which any portion of the "rights and title" passed from the Allied Powers to the Arab Palestinians. Unlike every single country adjacent to the territory in question, the Arab Palestinian cannot point to a date in which they became independent from League of Nations Mandate under British administration, or the International Trusteeship System (Chapter XII of the UN Charter).

Needless to say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty determined the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

Your failed attempt at re-writing of the LoN Covenant is consistent with your failed re-writing of other documents.

 

[RoccoR]

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

I don't know why the LoN Covenant is discussed in the context of Arab Palestinian legal rights. It is not like the Arab Palestinian is a party to the contract. The Covenant makes no binding commitment or promise to the Arab Palestinian any implicit or explicit fashion.

​

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people who, as a collective, had the legal right to become one of those independent States mentioned in the LoN Covenant and who had the right to territorial integrity without aggression and external interference.

The LoN Covenant upholds the premise that "interference" in the form of tutelage by advanced nations for those preparing for independence is not only permitted, but is a sacred trust of civilization.

(COMMENT)

The LoN Covenant is an agreement between the parties; explicitly in and for the parties. The Allied Powers made such agreements between themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

The LoN Covenant is an agreement between the parties; explicitly in and for the parties. The Allied Powers made such agreements between themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes. The LoN Covenant binds those Party to the Covenant to certain principles -- including the principle of sacred trust of civilization to assist emerging independent States. It in no way binds Israel or the Arab Palestinians.

In the context of non-interference which Tinmore brings up, the relevant point I was trying to make is that non-interference as a legal principle in international law is NOT absolute. In particular, emerging States who were not yet capable of full sovereignty and independence (not yet States) were subject to administration by advanced nations according to the principles of those nations in the documents which formulated the very laws of relationships between States which Tinmore uses.

But we are getting picky here, and I'm not sure Tinmore can keep up.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This is why Israel Built a wall on the Gaza Border

 

[Sixties Fan]

As we noted to editors, the allegation, that the mission in Gaza was designed to kidnap or kill a Hamas commander, was flatly denied by the IDF on the morning of Nov. 12th, and all major media outlets we monitored included this denial when citing these early, and completely unsubstantiated, Hamas claims. (In fact, since the article was published, Hamas themselves admitted that this wasn’t accurate.)

Though editors didn’t remove the false claim, they at least added Israel’s denial.

The new sentence is in bold:

(full article online)

Indy editors correct one of Sarah Helm’s false claims about recent Hamas violence

 

[Sixties Fan]

'We die anyway, so let it be in front of the cameras': Conversations with Gazans

 

[TrueTT]

'We die anyway, so let it be in front of the cameras': Conversations with Gazans

Should be archived and shown to the world to dispel all possible avenues for sympathy for the Palestinians from the international community.

These Muslim Arabs have no lives and thus want shahadah. Why is it such a problem when the Jews deliver it to them?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people who, as a collective, had the legal right to become one of those independent States mentioned in the LoN Covenant and who had the right to territorial integrity without aggression and external interference.

The LoN Covenant upholds the premise that "interference" in the form of tutelage by advanced nations for those preparing for independence is not only permitted, but is a sacred trust of civilization.

Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people

What are you babbling about? The native Jews always had the same rights as the rest of the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I don't know why the LoN Covenant is discussed in the context of Arab Palestinian legal rights. It is not like the Arab Palestinian is a party to the contract. The Covenant makes no binding commitment or promise to the Arab Palestinian any implicit or explicit fashion.

View attachment 232071 View attachment 232072
​

And who did the LoN Covenant say were the Parties concerned?

The inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

Yeah. And you always seem to (cough cough) forget that the inhabitants included the Jewish people who, as a collective, had the legal right to become one of those independent States mentioned in the LoN Covenant and who had the right to territorial integrity without aggression and external interference.

The LoN Covenant upholds the premise that "interference" in the form of tutelage by advanced nations for those preparing for independence is not only permitted, but is a sacred trust of civilization.

(COMMENT)

The LoN Covenant is an agreement between the parties; explicitly in and for the parties. The Allied Powers made such agreements between themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, and they agreed that the Mandates would not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty would be in the hands of the inhabitants.