The Invention of the Land of Israel

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"look at these drone attacks the us is involved with and innocent civilians targeted and killed.look at all israels unlawful targetings of civilians, that have killed over 1500 palestinian children since 2000."

except for the fact that the us and israel do not deliberately target civilians - whereas hamas and hezbullah and the two brother scum in boston have consistently done exactly that.

And that makes all the difference..........

thousands of reports by human rights groups find israel unlawfully targets civilians! Your denial of truth changes nothing!

thousands of reports, frau sherri??? Where are all the human rights groups when it comes to what the muslims are doing to others. Do they just sit back and yawn? When we see what is happening in egypt right now when it comes to not only the copts but muslims also, one would think that the human rights groups would be very, very active there. Frau sherri is going to point the way for us to see what the human rights groups are saying about this. She can also point the way for us to see what all those glorious human rights groups are saying about what is happening in syria by both the assad regime and the rebels themselves. Since frau sherri is the expert on human rights groups, she will be so happy to accommodate us.

google unispal, the reports are there, at least part of the thousands of them that have been written!

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, P F Tinmore, et al,

There are two sides to this coin.

OF course, the US is not going to define herself or her allies as terrorist states. BUT what is at the center of terrorism is unlawful targetings of civilians. AND both Israel and the US are as guilty of that, perhaps even more so, than HAMAS or HEZBOLLAH. LOOK at these drone attacks the US is involved with and innocent civilians targeted and killed.LOOK at all Israels unlawful targetings of civilians, that have killed over 1500 Palestinian children since 2000. ISRAEL has killed substantially more innocent civilians in terrorist attacks, then have Hamas or Hezbollah. AND we have investigations and findings of human rights groups that the unlawful targetings of civilians have occurred. US law has no relevance in defining terrorism outside of the US.

(COMMENT)

This is a classic "human conflict" (war) versus "human rights" (peace/tranquility) argument. In a perfect world where all of humanity collectively advances at the same rate - there would be some balance between the two. But it is not a perfect world.

War is not something govern by human rights concepts; but is its antithesis. "War is the extension of politics by other means." (Major General Carl Von Clausewitz, Prussian Army) The Palestinian Conflict is simply a means by which the Palestinians are attempting to achieve their stated goals and objectives (political-religious ends - Hamas Covenant 1988 - The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988). And it is in that Hamas Covenant, that drives the doctrine.

A terrorist organization does not live in a vacuum. It must have support in order to maintain its momentum and capacity. In the case of Hamas, the general indigenous population came together as a collective and decided to provide that support to Hamas in order for it to achieve those stated objectives. In effect, pitting the national desires of the Palestinian population against the national security interests of the Israeli population (conflict - war).

In a prefect world, the principle of proportionality would (from a humanitarian standpoint) come into play (the Palestinians lose 2000 children, so the Israeli must lose 2000 children). But in conflict (war), that is absurd. War, from the combatant point of view, is about survivability. It is a maximum effort to seek-out and engage the enemy; not just to suppress enemy fire, but to silence their guns. When nations (the national population) goes to war, it is an "all in" affair. You bring the entire tool box to the war, and you entend to break the will of the opponent, or break their ability to continue to pursue further hostilities.

While it is unfortunate that the Palestinian is on the losing side in such an exchange, war is (by its very nature) an inhumane effort; a him or you situation. It includes the destruction of the capacity to continue, militarily, industrially, commercially, logistically, --- everything --- to include the national will. It is not a humanitarian exercise. While some may try to apply humanitarian rules (Geneva Convention, Law of Land Warfare, etc), there is a balance that must be struck to sustain such applications.

Remember, it take two (or more) combatants to open hostilities. If one quits the field, the struggle is over, and the healing process begins.

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country.

It looks like the Palestinians are on the defensive side of this conflict.

(COMMENT)

This is a short variation on a theme:

That the entire administration of the post-War Mandate Territory was a violation of the Arab right of self-determination. That Jewish immigrants forced their way in to Arab territory. That an immigrant non-Islamic and foreign people came to Palestine; (often described as originating from Europe) Jewish people the Palestinian did not want and would not tolerate. In essence, the Palestinian regarded the post-War immigration, for the establishment of a Jewish National Home, as a Jewish invasion of Palestine.​

There is an argument to be made.

This theme presupposes that the post-War Allied Powers, in the administration of the former Ottoman territories, had no standing or authority over the region.

• Articles, 94-97 and 139 of the 1920 Treaty.

It presupposes that the Palestinians had an established country, prior to the mandate by the Allied Powers.

• No such country.

It presupposes that the surrounding Arab States (creations by the Allied Powers) had been granted independence, but that self-government should be withheld from Palestinian.

• GA Resolution 181(II)

And all this ---- is inconsistent with the evidence in history.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

SherriMunnerlyn, P F Tinmore, et al,

There are two sides to this coin.

OF course, the US is not going to define herself or her allies as terrorist states. BUT what is at the center of terrorism is unlawful targetings of civilians. AND both Israel and the US are as guilty of that, perhaps even more so, than HAMAS or HEZBOLLAH. LOOK at these drone attacks the US is involved with and innocent civilians targeted and killed.LOOK at all Israels unlawful targetings of civilians, that have killed over 1500 Palestinian children since 2000. ISRAEL has killed substantially more innocent civilians in terrorist attacks, then have Hamas or Hezbollah. AND we have investigations and findings of human rights groups that the unlawful targetings of civilians have occurred. US law has no relevance in defining terrorism outside of the US.

(COMMENT)

This is a classic "human conflict" (war) versus "human rights" (peace/tranquility) argument. In a perfect world where all of humanity collectively advances at the same rate - there would be some balance between the two. But it is not a perfect world.

War is not something govern by human rights concepts; but is its antithesis. "War is the extension of politics by other means." (Major General Carl Von Clausewitz, Prussian Army) The Palestinian Conflict is simply a means by which the Palestinians are attempting to achieve their stated goals and objectives (political-religious ends - Hamas Covenant 1988 - The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988). And it is in that Hamas Covenant, that drives the doctrine.

A terrorist organization does not live in a vacuum. It must have support in order to maintain its momentum and capacity. In the case of Hamas, the general indigenous population came together as a collective and decided to provide that support to Hamas in order for it to achieve those stated objectives. In effect, pitting the national desires of the Palestinian population against the national security interests of the Israeli population (conflict - war).

In a prefect world, the principle of proportionality would (from a humanitarian standpoint) come into play (the Palestinians lose 2000 children, so the Israeli must lose 2000 children). But in conflict (war), that is absurd. War, from the combatant point of view, is about survivability. It is a maximum effort to seek-out and engage the enemy; not just to suppress enemy fire, but to silence their guns. When nations (the national population) goes to war, it is an "all in" affair. You bring the entire tool box to the war, and you entend to break the will of the opponent, or break their ability to continue to pursue further hostilities.

While it is unfortunate that the Palestinian is on the losing side in such an exchange, war is (by its very nature) an inhumane effort; a him or you situation. It includes the destruction of the capacity to continue, militarily, industrially, commercially, logistically, --- everything --- to include the national will. It is not a humanitarian exercise. While some may try to apply humanitarian rules (Geneva Convention, Law of Land Warfare, etc), there is a balance that must be struck to sustain such applications.

Remember, it take two (or more) combatants to open hostilities. If one quits the field, the struggle is over, and the healing process begins.

See following quote.

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country.

It looks like the Palestinians are on the defensive side of this conflict.

(COMMENT)

This is a short variation on a theme:

That the entire administration of the post-War Mandate Territory was a violation of the Arab right of self-determination. That Jewish immigrants forced their way in to Arab territory. That an immigrant non-Islamic and foreign people came to Palestine; (often described as originating from Europe) Jewish people the Palestinian did not want and would not tolerate. In essence, the Palestinian regarded the post-War immigration, for the establishment of a Jewish National Home, as a Jewish invasion of Palestine.​

What part of this is incorrect?

There is an argument to be made.

This theme presupposes that the post-War Allied Powers, in the administration of the former Ottoman territories, had no standing or authority over the region.​

• Articles, 94-97 and 139 of the 1920 Treaty.

What was written in the LoN covenant was not what the Palestinians got. The covenant was not followed.

It presupposes that the Palestinians had an established country, prior to the mandate by the Allied Powers.​

• No such country.

No it doesn't. That is a lie and irrelevant.

It presupposes that the surrounding Arab States (creations by the Allied Powers) had been granted independence, but that self-government should be withheld from Palestinian.​

• GA Resolution 181(II)

Resolution 181 is irrelevant. It was never implemented by the Security Council.

And all this ---- is inconsistent with the evidence in history.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

thousands of reports by human rights groups find israel unlawfully targets civilians! Your denial of truth changes nothing!

thousands of reports, frau sherri??? Where are all the human rights groups when it comes to what the muslims are doing to others. Do they just sit back and yawn? When we see what is happening in egypt right now when it comes to not only the copts but muslims also, one would think that the human rights groups would be very, very active there. Frau sherri is going to point the way for us to see what the human rights groups are saying about this. She can also point the way for us to see what all those glorious human rights groups are saying about what is happening in syria by both the assad regime and the rebels themselves. Since frau sherri is the expert on human rights groups, she will be so happy to accommodate us.

google unispal, the reports are there, at least part of the thousands of them that have been written!

Yeah, thousands of reports of abuses done by Israel!!! Meanwhile, there should be thousands and thousands of reports of abuses that go on against non Muslims in the Muslim world. Frau Sherri can help us find these reports or isn't she interested in the abuses which happen toward non Muslims since they are Infidels in her eyes. Maybe since Frau Sherri spends her days and nights running around the Internet looking for things to bash Israel and the Jews with, she just doesn't have the time to concern herself with the abuses committed against so many people in the world. After all, there are only 24 hours in the day, and Frau Sherri can't afford to spend a minute reading about these abuses.

 

[irosie91]

thousands of reports, frau sherri??? Where are all the human rights groups when it comes to what the muslims are doing to others. Do they just sit back and yawn? When we see what is happening in egypt right now when it comes to not only the copts but muslims also, one would think that the human rights groups would be very, very active there. Frau sherri is going to point the way for us to see what the human rights groups are saying about this. She can also point the way for us to see what all those glorious human rights groups are saying about what is happening in syria by both the assad regime and the rebels themselves. Since frau sherri is the expert on human rights groups, she will be so happy to accommodate us.

google unispal, the reports are there, at least part of the thousands of them that have been written!

Yeah, thousands of reports of abuses done by Israel!!! Meanwhile, there should be thousands and thousands of reports of abuses that go on against non Muslims in the Muslim world. Frau Sherri can help us find these reports or isn't she interested in the abuses which
happen toward non Muslims since they are Infidels in her eyes. Maybe since Frau Sherri spends her days and nights running around the Internet looking for things to bash Israel and the Jews with, she just doesn't have the time to concern herself with the abuses committed against so many people in the world. After all, there are only 24 hours in the day, and
Frau Sherri can't afford to spend a minute reading about these abuses.

There were stacks and stacks of pro hitler pamphlets in my town---
which included "reports" of all kinds of things-----left over from the
1930s and 1940s when I was a kid -----imagine----still there ----
scattered about circa 1960------all I saw were the remnants of
the VERY PROLIFIC WRITERS of that time. It never occured
to me that since there was SO MUCH OF IT----IT MUST HAVE HAD
GREAT TRUTH AND VALUE Way back then---there were stacks
and stacks of superman and batman comics----in the bedroom
of my brothers----and eventually stacks of MAD MAGAZINE


Maimonides' advice to the non isa-respecters ---be careful of that which
you write-----some people believe anything written------Josef Goebbels
----another isa-respecter beloved by sherri-----agreed

 

[Coyote]

The topic is not abuses which go on around the world - enough derailment. We have other forum sections for abuses in other areas of the world or generic religion bashing.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As I said, the Palestinian perspective doesn't fit with history.

This theme presupposes that the post-War Allied Powers, in the administration of the former Ottoman territories, had no standing or authority over the region.

• Articles, 94-97 and 139 of the 1920 Treaty.

What was written in the LoN covenant was not what the Palestinians got. The covenant was not followed.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in Article 22 of the Covenant was not followed. The LoN did not think that some of the people were ready for independence. Hense, a Mandate was created.

It presupposes that the Palestinians had an established country, prior to the mandate by the Allied Powers.

• No such country.

No it doesn't. That is a lie and irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

You claimed to have a country in your own statement. You said

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country.

It looks like the Palestinians are on the defensive side of this conflict.

Of course there was no such country. Under the LoN Charter, you cannot extend a Mandate over a pre-existing country. What we call Palestine today, under Article 95 of the Treaty, was an undefined territory within the overall region.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.

SOURCE: Sevres Treaty: Part III

The Treaty enacted Article 22 of the Covenant as the primary language. It is not Israel which was the first invention, but Palestine (within such boundaries as may be determined).

It presupposes that the surrounding Arab States (creations by the Allied Powers) had been granted independence, but that self-government should be withheld from Palestinian.

• GA Resolution 181(II)

Resolution 181 is irrelevant. It was never implemented by the Security Council.

(COMMENT)

GA Res 181(II) did not require Security Council implementation (phrasing was merely boiler plate). It was not a binding resolution (never intended to be). It was an agreement that could be accepted or reject. Israel accepted, and the Arabs rejected.

273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nationshttp://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC

Application of Israel for admission
A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949

The General Assembly had to determine first of all the criterion on which to base its decision to admit Israel. Ordinarily, applicant States were merely required to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter. However, in so far as Israel had actually been created in November 1947 by a resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II)), the Assembly had first to consider the cardinal question of whether the new State in its present structure conformed to the previous decisions affecting it which had been adopted by the United Nations itself.

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.​

(SIDEBAR)

GA Resolution 181(II) was used to initially to establish the legitimacy of the State of Israel in the application process. But it is the Palestinian side that actually wants to resurrect UN GA 181(II) as an active document. The Palestinians actually accept the legitimacy of the Resolution.

The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

(Para 3) Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

So says: Nasser AL-KIDWA, Ambassador, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations​

SOURCE: [UN INDEX: http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/vDateDoc?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=15.10#15.10

LINK TO: A/53/879-S/1999/334 of 25 March 1999

It is the Israeli side that wants the Resolution declared "null and void;" which the Palestinians claim is illegal. It is to the Israeli advantage because it also cancels the recognition of Israeli borders pre-1967; de facto annexation by defualt. The Israel side wants UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 to be the primary guides out of Camp David and Oslo.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS: Paul, sometimes you confuse me. By contesting GA Res 181(II), you are actually arguing for the Israeli side.

 

[P F Tinmore]

League of Nations
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Who are the “people” they are talking about if not the Palestinians?

Using the term " not yet able to stand by themselves" suggests that standing by themselves is the expected outcome of the assistance rendered by the mandate.

"the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation" says that the people are the primary concern of the mandate.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Here again it is the people who are assisted and that assistance should be entrusted to advanced nations who work on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

This speaks for itself, however, it mentions that the mandatory is to render administrative advice and assistance until the communities become independent nations. This is the stated purpose of the mandatory.

The mandatory does not own any land, have any borders, or hold any sovereignty.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

Note that they mention the people, communities, natives, and indigenous. There is no mention of foreigners. There is no mention of race, religion, or ethnic background.

It is plain to see that Britain violated this charter and the rights of the Palestinian people. Violating a people's rights does not negate those rights.

 

[toastman]

League of Nations
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Who are the “people” they are talking about if not the Palestinians?

Using the term " not yet able to stand by themselves" suggests that standing by themselves is the expected outcome of the assistance rendered by the mandate.

"the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation" says that the people are the primary concern of the mandate.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Here again it is the people who are assisted and that assistance should be entrusted to advanced nations who work on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

This speaks for itself, however, it mentions that the mandatory is to render administrative advice and assistance until the communities become independent nations. This is the stated purpose of the mandatory.

The mandatory does not own any land, have any borders, or hold any sovereignty.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

Note that they mention the people, communities, natives, and indigenous. There is no mention of foreigners. There is no mention of race, religion, or ethnic background.

It is plain to see that Britain violated this charter and the rights of the Palestinian people. Violating a people's rights does not negate those rights.

Unfortunately, yes it does .

 

[P F Tinmore]

League of Nations
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Who are the “people” they are talking about if not the Palestinians?

Using the term " not yet able to stand by themselves" suggests that standing by themselves is the expected outcome of the assistance rendered by the mandate.

"the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation" says that the people are the primary concern of the mandate.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Here again it is the people who are assisted and that assistance should be entrusted to advanced nations who work on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

This speaks for itself, however, it mentions that the mandatory is to render administrative advice and assistance until the communities become independent nations. This is the stated purpose of the mandatory.

The mandatory does not own any land, have any borders, or hold any sovereignty.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

Note that they mention the people, communities, natives, and indigenous. There is no mention of foreigners. There is no mention of race, religion, or ethnic background.

It is plain to see that Britain violated this charter and the rights of the Palestinian people. Violating a people's rights does not negate those rights.

Unfortunately, yes it does .

Explain?

 

[toastman]

League of Nations
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Who are the “people” they are talking about if not the Palestinians?

Using the term " not yet able to stand by themselves" suggests that standing by themselves is the expected outcome of the assistance rendered by the mandate.

"the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation" says that the people are the primary concern of the mandate.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Here again it is the people who are assisted and that assistance should be entrusted to advanced nations who work on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

This speaks for itself, however, it mentions that the mandatory is to render administrative advice and assistance until the communities become independent nations. This is the stated purpose of the mandatory.

The mandatory does not own any land, have any borders, or hold any sovereignty.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

Note that they mention the people, communities, natives, and indigenous. There is no mention of foreigners. There is no mention of race, religion, or ethnic background.

It is plain to see that Britain violated this charter and the rights of the Palestinian people. Violating a people's rights does not negate those rights.

Unfortunately, yes it does .

Explain?

Well, what specific rights are you talking about ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Unfortunately, yes it does .

Explain?

Well, what specific rights are you talking about ?

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Britain made no effort to fulfill this obligation.

 

[thetor]

Explain?

Well, what specific rights are you talking about ?

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Britain made no effort to fulfill this obligation.

why would they,the jewish politicians in Britain and the govenor in Palestine at the time were JEWS..tor a fait a complae

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; toastman; et al,

An opposing view.

Explain?

Well, what specific rights are you talking about ?

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Britain made no effort to fulfill this obligation.

(COMMENT)

There is a grave unspoken set of terms missing here. When Article 22 speaks, it was not just speaking about the undefined Palestine. It was speaking about several tribal areas that were relinquished or placed under Mandate or Protection. While there were several Mandatories appointed in those years, four Empires having fell in rapid succession, the UK was just one such Mandatory with a lot on its plate.

• BAHRAIN: Independence: 15 August 1971 from the UK protectorate status
• EGYPT: Independence: 28 February 1922 from UK protectorate status;
• IRAQ: Independence: 3 October 1932 from LoN British administration;
• JORDAN: Independence: 25 May 1946 from LoN British administration;
• KUWAIT: Independence: 19 June 1961 from the UK protectorate status;
• QATAR: Independence: 3 September 1971 from the UK protectorate status;
• SUDAN: Independent 1 January 1956 from Egypt and the UK protectorate status;
• SOUTH YEMEN: Independent on 30 November 1967 from the UK protectorate status;

This does not include the French Mandates and Protectors [examples: Lebanon (Independence: 22 November 1943) and Syria (Independence: 17 April 1946) from LoN French administration)].

Yes, their can be provisional recognition. But it is all too clear that in much of the Middle East, independence was granted too soon to many of the countries; they simply were not ready to stand alone. No region in the world has been subject to as much turmoil for as long a period, in a continuous state of hostility since the close of WWII.

But to say that the British did not try or made no effort, flys in the face of reality. Just because the undefined Palestinians did not get everything they wanted, is not evidence that the UK didn't try to exercise due diligence. (Contrary to popular belief, there is more to the world and the region than just the undefined Palestinian.) At some point the people called Palestinians have to look at themselves in the mirror and give an honest assessment of their conduct and responsibilities in what has transpired; and leave their "self victimization baggage" at home.

For more than six decades, what we call the Palestinian People have mimicked the symptoms of cultural anxiety - constantly demanding the unreasonable, depression and tantrums on a regional scale, conduct disorder through terrorism and open warfare, and learning disabilities that make good faith mediation and negotiations almost impossible. It is a culture, for which the world has come to understand, that is beyond normal behaviors. Anytime you have an entire culture that believes they have an inalienable right to conduct open terrorism, and warfare on their neighbors -- to write doctrine (like the Hamas Charter) that religiously supports that premise, you have a counterproductive culture; a detriment to humanity.

What we call the Palestinian People today, is a culture that acts like disruptive children. One takes a swing at another - and gets a bloody nose --- then immediately runs to the media, the UN, Humanitarian NGOs and cry foul; blaming everyone but themselves. They throw little temper tantrums because they look in every direction and see the others have something they don't have (a nation); yet they threw that opportunity away (because it wasn't good enough for them). They want the whole pie and don't want to share. And they pass that behavior down from generation to generation.

What do you do with such a culture? Independence! WOW... I'm not sure they would be satisfied with that. I'm not sure they are really ready to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore; toastman; et al,

An opposing view.

Well, what specific rights are you talking about ?

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Britain made no effort to fulfill this obligation.

(COMMENT)

There is a grave unspoken set of terms missing here. When Article 22 speaks, it was not just speaking about the undefined Palestine. It was speaking about several tribal areas that were relinquished or placed under Mandate or Protection. While there were several Mandatories appointed in those years, four Empires having fell in rapid succession, the UK was just one such Mandatory with a lot on its plate.

• BAHRAIN: Independence: 15 August 1971 from the UK protectorate status
• EGYPT: Independence: 28 February 1922 from UK protectorate status;
• IRAQ: Independence: 3 October 1932 from LoN British administration;
• JORDAN: Independence: 25 May 1946 from LoN British administration;
• KUWAIT: Independence: 19 June 1961 from the UK protectorate status;
• QATAR: Independence: 3 September 1971 from the UK protectorate status;
• SUDAN: Independent 1 January 1956 from Egypt and the UK protectorate status;
• SOUTH YEMEN: Independent on 30 November 1967 from the UK protectorate status;

This does not include the French Mandates and Protectors [examples: Lebanon (Independence: 22 November 1943) and Syria (Independence: 17 April 1946) from LoN French administration)].

Yes, their can be provisional recognition. But it is all too clear that in much of the Middle East, independence was granted too soon to many of the countries; they simply were not ready to stand alone. No region in the world has been subject to as much turmoil for as long a period, in a continuous state of hostility since the close of WWII.

But to say that the British did not try or made no effort, flys in the face of reality. Just because the undefined Palestinians did not get everything they wanted, is not evidence that the UK didn't try to exercise due diligence. (Contrary to popular belief, there is more to the world and the region than just the undefined Palestinian.) At some point the people called Palestinians have to look at themselves in the mirror and give an honest assessment of their conduct and responsibilities in what has transpired; and leave their "self victimization baggage" at home.

For more than six decades, what we call the Palestinian People have mimicked the symptoms of cultural anxiety - constantly demanding the unreasonable, depression and tantrums on a regional scale, conduct disorder through terrorism and open warfare, and learning disabilities that make good faith mediation and negotiations almost impossible. It is a culture, for which the world has come to understand, that is beyond normal behaviors. Anytime you have an entire culture that believes they have an inalienable right to conduct open terrorism, and warfare on their neighbors -- to write doctrine (like the Hamas Charter) that religiously supports that premise, you have a counterproductive culture; a detriment to humanity.

What we call the Palestinian People today, is a culture that acts like disruptive children. One takes a swing at another - and gets a bloody nose --- then immediately runs to the media, the UN, Humanitarian NGOs and cry foul; blaming everyone but themselves. They throw little temper tantrums because they look in every direction and see the others have something they don't have (a nation); yet they threw that opportunity away (because it wasn't good enough for them). They want the whole pie and don't want to share. And they pass that behavior down from generation to generation.

What do you do with such a culture? Independence! WOW... I'm not sure they would be satisfied with that. I'm not sure they are really ready to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Funny part is Muslims had no problems with 99% of the British and French mandate divisions which ended up in Muslim hands. It seems THE ONLY UNACCEPTABLE DIVISION was the one that was given to the Jews, in the ancient homeland of their ancestors, aka Israel.

In other words, anybody who thinks that this conflict is not about Islamic intolerance and hatred of THE OTHER, is kidding themselves.

 

[tinydancer]

Why can't we get there from here. I mean it with all my heart.

Is this not stupid? Palestine gets X Israel gets X. Just do it. How crazy is this? I didn't understand it when he wouldn't give it under Clinton. I don't understand any of it now.

I don't get it.

THE problem is Israel will not end her Occupation of Palestine. INTL authorities tell us Occupied Palestine is East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. Israel needs to remove her troops and illegal settlers and compensate refugees for their losses.

Well, I guess even Nazis like you can dream

Why is any one else calling anyone else a NAZI?

This is just plain wrong.

 

[sealadaigh]

THE problem is Israel will not end her Occupation of Palestine. INTL authorities tell us Occupied Palestine is East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. Israel needs to remove her troops and illegal settlers and compensate refugees for their losses.

Well, I guess even Nazis like you can dream

Why is any one else calling anyone else a NAZI?

This is just plain wrong.

i think it is occasionally appropriate as an analogy but name calling...inappropriate. the funny thing is the way the use of the term has morphed. it was generally gentile posters who used the term and directed it towards zionists. jewish posters objected and rarely used it. now it has changed where very few gentile posters use the term but a lot of jewish posters use it and direct it towards those who seek justice for the palestinians.

sorta weird if you ask me. one woman asked me to stop using it, citing godwin's law. i did, but now she seems to use it...not frequently but noticeably.

 

[tinydancer]

Well now that Tamerlane has come up with this moron bombing the marathon; are we supposed to now give back all he conquered?

And he was one evil son of a bitch. He was sort of a equal opportunity killer. He did in Sunnis and Shias.

Honest question to make Palestine a state why don't you just do it? You have the land. Make yourself a State .

If you cared about your people make yourself a state with what you have and protect them and trade with other nations. Get trade going. Rock it.

 

[tinydancer]

In 2009, Shlomo Sand published The Invention of the Jewish People, in which he claimed that Jews have little in common with each other. They had no common "ethnic" lineage owing to the high level of conversion in antiquity. They had no common language, since Hebrew was used only for prayer and was not even spoken at the time of Jesus. Yiddish was, at most, the language of Ashkenazi Jews. So what is left to unite them? Religion? But religion does not make a people – think of Muslims and Catholics. And most Jews are not religious. Zionism? But that is a political position: one can be a Scot and not a Scottish nationalist. Besides, the majority of Jews, including many Zionists, have not the slightest intention of going "back" to the Holy Land, much preferring, and who can blame them, to stay put in north London, or Brooklyn or wherever. In other words, "Jewish People" is a political construct, an invention. Now Sand tells us, in this second volume of what will be a trilogy, that even the "Land of Israel" was invented.

The Invention of the Land*of*Israel by Shlomo Sand ? review | Books | The Guardian

Older book says Israel existed. You know. That best selling book. The bible.

Fuck this asshole. Now back to just truth and not religion.

You have to be kidding me that Israel did not exist. Surely you can't argue this.

 

[tinydancer]

This is why I do not come in here as much as I love both sides. I don't understand why this can't be worked out.

Come on.

It's a land dispute. Give er. Get it done. Make the people in both lands happy. There's a joe six pack mohammed out there who's just begging to bring in an olive crop. That's all the dude wants. Meanwhile back at the ranch, crazies are remote controlling retarded children to the Israeli border to blow them up.

I mean come on. Why can't a line just be drawn and then both sides could love life. I don't get this at all.