The Myth of Occupied Territories

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Oh come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said.

Interesting that they did not mention Israel. Palestine was mentioned though.

BTW, the armistice lines were lines that were not to be crossed by military forces.

They specifically were not to be considered political or territorial boundaries. They did not define any state or territory.

(COMMENT)

I think that everyone understood what happened, from the position the Arab Higher Committee had taken.

• Israel completed the preparatory steps to independence, IAW GA/RES/181(II).
• Israel declared independence as coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission.
• The Arab League & Arab Higher Committee did not like the outcome.
• The Arab League & Arab Higher Committee opened up Hostilities to take by military force, the territory they unilateral declared as theirs.
• The military forces of The Arab League & irregular forces or the Arab Higher Committee had unsuccessful engagements and lost control of approximately 50% of the territory allocated by UN recommendation to the Arab State.

It is fairly plain.

Now after 60 years of conflict, the successors of the Arab Higher Committee are still trying to overturn the UN decisions through war and terrorism.

Remember, it was the Arab that tried to take is all, not the Israeli.

Most Respectfully,
R

Tell us under what Moral authority did the Arabs have to share anything, It had been under their control by Islamic Regimes for two millennia which protected the residents left there since the Diaspora.

(COMMENT)

There is no Arab culture that has any right to raise a "moral question" given their history of barbarity. However, as to authority, that is easy.

The authority came from the Muslims, by Treaty, through the Turkish Government, the successor nation to the Ottoman Empire.

ARTICLE 139

Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State.

ARTICLE 95

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. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

ARTICLE 97

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.

SOURCE: Treaty of Sevres

Although I dearly sympathize with the plight of the Jews after WWll, why did the Arabs have to pay for atrocities against Jews by European Christians?

(COMMENT)

Luck of the draw. The Allied Powers deemed it a logical place. You can agree or not. But it was their decision.

That's really the Moral crux of the matter. Two wrongs have never made a right.

(COMMENT)

And the reaction of the Arabs complicated the matter. Three wrongs even make it less right.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

Oh come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said.

Interesting that they did not mention Israel. Palestine was mentioned though.

BTW, the armistice lines were lines that were not to be crossed by military forces.

They specifically were not to be considered political or territorial boundaries. They did not define any state or territory.

(COMMENT)

I think that everyone understood what happened, from the position the Arab Higher Committee had taken.

• Israel completed the preparatory steps to independence, IAW GA/RES/181(II).
• Israel declared independence as coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission.
• The Arab League & Arab Higher Committee did not like the outcome.
• The Arab League & Arab Higher Committee opened up Hostilities to take by military force, the territory they unilateral declared as theirs.
• The military forces of The Arab League & irregular forces or the Arab Higher Committee had unsuccessful engagements and lost control of approximately 50% of the territory allocated by UN recommendation to the Arab State.

It is fairly plain.

Now after 60 years of conflict, the successors of the Arab Higher Committee are still trying to overturn the UN decisions through war and terrorism.

Remember, it was the Arab that tried to take is all, not the Israeli.

Most Respectfully,
R

(COMMENT)

There is no Arab culture that has any right to raise a "moral question" given their history of barbarity. However, as to authority, that is easy.

The authority came from the Muslims, by Treaty, through the Turkish Government, the successor nation to the Ottoman Empire.

Although I dearly sympathize with the plight of the Jews after WWll, why did the Arabs have to pay for atrocities against Jews by European Christians?

(COMMENT)

Luck of the draw. The Allied Powers deemed it a logical place. You can agree or not. But it was their decision.

That's really the Moral crux of the matter. Two wrongs have never made a right.

(COMMENT)

And the reaction of the Arabs complicated the matter. Three wrongs even make it less right.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians defending their country is a "wrong?"

Got a link?

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Oh come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said.


(COMMENT)

I think that everyone understood what happened, from the position the Arab Higher Committee had taken.

• Israel completed the preparatory steps to independence, IAW GA/RES/181(II).
• Israel declared independence as coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission.
• The Arab League & Arab Higher Committee did not like the outcome.
• The Arab League & Arab Higher Committee opened up Hostilities to take by military force, the territory they unilateral declared as theirs.
• The military forces of The Arab League & irregular forces or the Arab Higher Committee had unsuccessful engagements and lost control of approximately 50% of the territory allocated by UN recommendation to the Arab State.

It is fairly plain.

Now after 60 years of conflict, the successors of the Arab Higher Committee are still trying to overturn the UN decisions through war and terrorism.

Remember, it was the Arab that tried to take is all, not the Israeli.

Most Respectfully,
R

(COMMENT)

There is no Arab culture that has any right to raise a "moral question" given their history of barbarity. However, as to authority, that is easy.

The authority came from the Muslims, by Treaty, through the Turkish Government, the successor nation to the Ottoman Empire.



(COMMENT)

Luck of the draw. The Allied Powers deemed it a logical place. You can agree or not. But it was their decision.

That's really the Moral crux of the matter. Two wrongs have never made a right.

(COMMENT)

And the reaction of the Arabs complicated the matter. Three wrongs even make it less right.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians defending their country is a "wrong?"

Got a link?

Tinnie, these right wing Analysts keep pointing to Western Power Documents and expect compliance with their declarations, Treaties.

The pomposity is nauseating.

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

Oh come now.



(COMMENT)

There is no Arab culture that has any right to raise a "moral question" given their history of barbarity. However, as to authority, that is easy.

The authority came from the Muslims, by Treaty, through the Turkish Government, the successor nation to the Ottoman Empire.



(COMMENT)

Luck of the draw. The Allied Powers deemed it a logical place. You can agree or not. But it was their decision.


(COMMENT)

And the reaction of the Arabs complicated the matter. Three wrongs even make it less right.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians defending their country is a "wrong?"

Got a link?

Tinnie, these right wing Analysts keep pointing to Western Power Documents and expect compliance with their declarations, Treaties.

The pomposity is nauseating.

Indeed, illegal external interference extraordinaire.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said.

Interesting that they did not mention Israel. Palestine was mentioned though.

BTW, the armistice lines were lines that were not to be crossed by military forces.

They specifically were not to be considered political or territorial boundaries. They did not define any state or territory.

(COMMENT)

I think that everyone understood what happened, from the position the Arab Higher Committee had taken.

• Israel completed the preparatory steps to independence, IAW GA/RES/181(II).

Maybe, but the UN did not. The UN did not establish borders and transfer land for the Jewish state. An absolute necessity in the creation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

Again, relative to the process and protocols, there was no establish borders and transfer other than the borders established A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947 PART II - Boundaries - Section A, The Arab State, and Section B, Jewish State. There are no land transfers because that is not an element in the process of independence. You will not find any land transfers by any of the Mandatories or the Allied Powers in the case of any of the Arab States; not Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt or the Sudan; and Yemen.

Your insinuation that some element was missing or essential to the creation of the State of Israel may, or may not be true. But it has nothing to do with "establish borders and transfer land."

Not true. When Israel declared independence it had already violated the rights of the non Jewish population, violated the proposed borders, and violated the UN city of Jerusalem.

(COMMENT)

The Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State, did not include the International City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem did not come into play until after the outbreak of hostilities and the entry of the Arab Legion.

Not true. It was the UN that abandoned resolution 181 without implementing it.

(COMMENT)

I suppose you can keep saying that, but it really is a misrepresentation of the facts. As you know, implementation applied to three aspects within the resolution; a Arab State aspect, a Jewish State aspect, and a Jerusalem Internationalization aspect. The Arab State aspect did not require implementation because the Arab Higher Committee rejected it. The Jewish State aspect was implemented and the UN announced that fact. During today's brief meeting (17 May '48), Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

Remember, it was the Arab that tried to take is all, not the Israeli.

Ridiculous statement. The Palestinians wanting to "take" all of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Not nonsense. The Arab High Committee said it then.

Q: Have Jewish forces penetrated into the territory in which you claim to have authority?

Answer: Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful.

SOURCE: S/775 24 May 1948

The Hostile Arab Palestinian says it now.

Article 1.

Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.​

Article 2:

Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

SOURCE: Charter

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, pbel, et al,

What country is that again?

The Palestinians defending their country is a "wrong?"

Got a link?

Tinnie, these right wing Analysts keep pointing to Western Power Documents and expect compliance with their declarations, Treaties.

The pomposity is nauseating.

Indeed, illegal external interference extraordinaire.

(COMMENT)

There was no country of Palestine until 1988.

The Arab intervention was an external interference with the implementation process is a wrong. The Palestinian irregular forces assaulting the new State of Israel is a wrong. The non-cooperation and the promotion of a continuation of conflict after the War is a wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Palestinians are always trying to defend their use of terrorism, asymmetric warfare, and armed struggle in pursuit of their goal to achieve governance over the territory known as Israel.

The Palestinians defending their country is a "wrong?"

Got a link?

(COMMENT)

This depends on a number of answers to specific question?

• What is meant by "their country?"
• What are the Palestinians defending against?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Humm, reality is stranger than fiction.

I didn't post fiction, I posted an official UN report.

Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful.

That's right! That's a true statement. At the time Zionists unilaterally declared Israel to be a sovereign nation, jews only owned 7% of the land.

Arabs were representative of the overwhelming population. Why wouldn't they freak out? You would to, if you were in their situation. In fact, you ARE freaking out, because you can't even stand the rising number of arab-Israeli's that at present, make up 22% of the population of Israel proper.

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

Hey, you're the one who keeps pointing to the Mandate and now you're not following it's conditions, after you declared a few posts ago, you did.

The Mandate does speaks to the "civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine" (not inalienable right of indigenous people to that land) and have written commentary several times concerning the fact that the civil rights to land ownership is not the same as sovereignty over the land.

Stop playing semantics! You know exactly what that means. The UN report I posted specifically stated all the violence began when Zionists refused to respect the rights of the indigenous arabs and when those residents objected, the Zionists responded with violence.

The State of Israel has not gained (annexed) any Arab territory (excluding a piece of Jerusalem) through either the 1967 War or the 1973 War. The Occupied Territory is has not been annexed..

The UN report I posted clearly stated in the ensuing violence in 1947, Zionists increased their territory. You can't cherry-pick history.


I think I'll end this with a warning. Take it any way you want.

Kobe Bryant just practiced with the Lakers for the first time in 7 months. He's coming back.
He's coming back soon. You got a problem with that?​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not nonsense. The Arab High Committee said it then.

Q: Have Jewish forces penetrated into the territory in which you claim to have authority?

Answer: Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful.

SOURCE: S/775 24 May 1948

The Hostile Arab Palestinian says it now.

Article 1.

Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.​

Article 2:

Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

SOURCE: Charter

OK, how is this not true?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians are always trying to defend their use of terrorism, asymmetric warfare, and armed struggle in pursuit of their goal to achieve governance over the territory known as Israel.

OK, but everything I can find says that Israel exists inside Palestine.

Do you have something to the contrary?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing says that there was a country named Palestine prior to 1988.

Palestinians are always trying to defend their use of terrorism, asymmetric warfare, and armed struggle in pursuit of their goal to achieve governance over the territory known as Israel.

OK, but everything I can find says that Israel exists inside Palestine.

Do you have something to the contrary?

(COMMENT)

What you have is something that is referring to the territory of Palestine.

Show me an example of the nation of Palestine. What the Ottoman Empire remanded to the Allied Powers was the undefined territory of Palestine, with borders to be determined by the Mandatory. There was no autonomous state there.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing says that there was a country named Palestine prior to 1988.

Palestinians are always trying to defend their use of terrorism, asymmetric warfare, and armed struggle in pursuit of their goal to achieve governance over the territory known as Israel.

OK, but everything I can find says that Israel exists inside Palestine.

Do you have something to the contrary?

(COMMENT)

What you have is something that is referring to the territory of Palestine.

Show me an example of the nation of Palestine. What the Ottoman Empire remanded to the Allied Powers was the undefined territory of Palestine, with borders to be determined by the Mandatory. There was no autonomous state there.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jees, Rocco, you are not going to grasp at those straws again?

When the League of Nations said "the people" to whom were they referring?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Make a complete statement or quote.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing says that there was a country named Palestine prior to 1988.

OK, but everything I can find says that Israel exists inside Palestine.

Do you have something to the contrary?

(COMMENT)

What you have is something that is referring to the territory of Palestine.

Show me an example of the nation of Palestine. What the Ottoman Empire remanded to the Allied Powers was the undefined territory of Palestine, with borders to be determined by the Mandatory. There was no autonomous state there.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jees, Rocco, you are not going to grasp at those straws again?

When the League of Nations said "the people" to whom were they referring?

(COMMENT)

The phrase "the people" means everyone. What are you talking about specifically?

During the Mandate period, "the people" referred to everyone - not just Arabs. It was all encompassing.

In the statement I was answering, we were talking about territorial sovereignty.

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Make a complete statement or quote.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing says that there was a country named Palestine prior to 1988.


(COMMENT)

What you have is something that is referring to the territory of Palestine.

Show me an example of the nation of Palestine. What the Ottoman Empire remanded to the Allied Powers was the undefined territory of Palestine, with borders to be determined by the Mandatory. There was no autonomous state there.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jees, Rocco, you are not going to grasp at those straws again?

When the League of Nations said "the people" to whom were they referring?

(COMMENT)

The phrase "the people" means everyone. What are you talking about specifically?

During the Mandate period, "the people" referred to everyone - not just Arabs. It was all encompassing.

In the statement I was answering, we were talking about territorial sovereignty.

v/r
R

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.[2] Article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine stipulated that the British mandatory power "shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law". The British authority via the structure of the British Mandate of Palestine was directed to "facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine." Article 15 stated that "No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief."[3]

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course those are the people who have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory or that state.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are a couple of things you should know about the Treaty of Lausanne.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.[2] Article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine stipulated that the British mandatory power "shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law". The British authority via the structure of the British Mandate of Palestine was directed to "facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine." Article 15 stated that "No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief."[3]

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course those are the people who have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory or that state.

(BACKGROUND)

Article 22 laid down no rules for the selection of the Mandatory Powers or for the distribution of mandates between them. Turkey and Germany were simply made to renounce their claims to sovereignty over the territories whose distribution was to be decided by the Allied Powers. Germany's divestiture of titles was codified in the Treaty of Versailles (article 119). In the case of Turkey, such renunciation was provided for in the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 (article 132) but, since that treaty never came into force, the renunciation of Turkish claims over non-Turkish territories was formalized in the Treaty of Lausanne. The treaties of Versailles and of Lausanne contained explicit provisions empowering the Allied Powers to apportion the "freed" territories as their mandates.

The former German territories were allotted by a decision of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers on 7 May 1919, shortly after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The former Turkish territories, however, were divided at the Conference of San Remo on 25 April 1920, while a legal state of war with Turkey still existed, three years before the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. The administration of Syria and Lebanon was awarded to France, and that of Palestine and Transjordan and of Mesopotamia (Iraq) to Great Britain.

The Zionist Organization however, succeeded in having its formulation concerning "historical connection" and "reconstitution" of the "national home" included in the final text of the Mandate (annex V) which was approved by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and came into formal effect in September 1923 when the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey came into force. It thus gave international sanction - which then meant the sanction of the victorious Allied Powers - to the Balfour Declaration, and determined the direction of developments in Palestine.

SOURCE: 30 June 1978 The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988

(COMMENT)

The idea embedded here is that "all people" were considered "the people." Now having said that, it included everyone given citizenship under the Mandate.

Special Note: In defense of the truth (even though it might support your position and the basis for the Palestinian claims), it becomes extremely important to acknowledge a very important interpretive view.

As you read and study the Mandate for Palestine, one striking issue comes to the surface:

• The Mandate to no have an Arab counterpart to the Jewish Agency which had quasi-official status. This means, in effect, that the Jewish Population and Immigrants had an internal body that served Jewish interest, whereas, the Arab Palestinian Population had no internal body serving the same purpose for the Arab Palestinian.

The importance of the Special Note is the legacy is brought to the original Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Resistance; and the inability of the HoAP in dealing with the concept of Partition.

As for the difference between ""habitually residents"" and that of "citizens" (permanent residence) is something contrived by the Arab Palestinian to make a distinction between themselves and immigrants granted citizenship. While there is a technical argument to be made on the difference and which interpretation should be used, it may be more mute - than not. The Arab Palestinian, at least prior to WWII (1939), understood the plight of the Jewish People. And the Arab Palestinian (at least from the historical record) had some sympathy for the Jewish people escaping Europe. The furtherance of the Balfour Declaration and its amplification over time, may have had the exact opposite effect of that for which it was intended; antagonizing the Arab Palestinian and key factor turning them hostile. Not a lot is written from this perspective.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Special Note: In defense of the truth (even though it might support your position and the basis for the Palestinian claims), it becomes extremely important to acknowledge a very important interpretive view.

As you read and study the Mandate for Palestine, one striking issue comes to the surface:

• 
  The Mandate to no have an Arab counterpart to the Jewish Agency which had quasi-official status. This means, in effect, that the Jewish Population and Immigrants had an internal body that served Jewish interest, whereas, the Arab Palestinian Population had no internal body serving the same purpose for the Arab Palestinian.

Of course this epitomizes the problems in Palestine.

The purpose of the mandate was to allow Jewish immigration, assist those immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship, and create an independent Palestinian state with equal rights for all. This was to be in accordance with the wishes if the people. May I assume that "the people" included legal immigrants who had obtained Palestinian citizenship.

I don't see where this would have created any major problems. However, the facts on the ground were considerably different. The first major problem was that the immigration policy was created, top down, by foreigners with the virtually unanimous opposition of the people.

This was typical throughout the mandate period. The decisions were made by foreigners while the people were kicked to the curb and left out of the decision making process.

All of this was in violation of the Palestinian's legal rights.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To an extent, I have to agree. But those were the rules of the day for that region of the world.

Special Note: In defense of the truth (even though it might support your position and the basis for the Palestinian claims), it becomes extremely important to acknowledge a very important interpretive view.

As you read and study the Mandate for Palestine, one striking issue comes to the surface:

• 
  The Mandate to no have an Arab counterpart to the Jewish Agency which had quasi-official status. This means, in effect, that the Jewish Population and Immigrants had an internal body that served Jewish interest, whereas, the Arab Palestinian Population had no internal body serving the same purpose for the Arab Palestinian.

Of course this epitomizes the problems in Palestine.

The purpose of the mandate was to allow Jewish immigration, assist those immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship, and create an independent Palestinian state with equal rights for all. This was to be in accordance with the wishes if the people. May I assume that "the people" included legal immigrants who had obtained Palestinian citizenship.

I don't see where this would have created any major problems. However, the facts on the ground were considerably different. The first major problem was that the immigration policy was created, top down, by foreigners with the virtually unanimous opposition of the people.

This was typical throughout the mandate period. The decisions were made by foreigners while the people were kicked to the curb and left out of the decision making process.

All of this was in violation of the Palestinian's legal rights.

(COMMENT)

In reality, anything south of Turkey, and east of The Sudan and Egypt (not Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arab, The UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, etc) is not a Democracy, where the "right of the people" take precedence. The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee had no intention of creating a Arab Democracy for the Palestinian. The intention was to create another failed state, kingdom or despot. At the time, the concept of the "Ruling Elite" was the order of the day. And it is still the order of the day in most Arab Countries.

Decisions were not made then by the majority, and are not now made by the majority. It was not then, nor is it now, even logical for the Palestinian to press for human rights and self-determination. They have a hard time figuring out who they have in-charge now.

The reason that no state, outside the region, moves against Israel, is that Israel has demonstrated it is not a failed state or another Islamic threat and despotism. The Arab-Palestinians have demonstrated exactly the opposite. Look in any direction, either you see a stable Kingdom (the Ruling Elite), or you see chaos. But you don't see a truly functioning democracy; with the shaky exception of Lebanon.

I honestly have to chuckle when I hear the phrase "violation of the Palestinian's legal rights." What future does the Palestinian have under their own rule. For the last 100 years, what voices they have had have been from the Arab League. There are Palestinians still today that argue that Abu Mazen is not the duly elected voice of the Palestinian; yet, unable to say who is. When was HAMAS last elected?

The "Palestinian's legal rights" is the right to live in chaos.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To an extent, I have to agree. But those were the rules of the day for that region of the world.

Special Note: In defense of the truth (even though it might support your position and the basis for the Palestinian claims), it becomes extremely important to acknowledge a very important interpretive view.

As you read and study the Mandate for Palestine, one striking issue comes to the surface:

• 
  The Mandate to no have an Arab counterpart to the Jewish Agency which had quasi-official status. This means, in effect, that the Jewish Population and Immigrants had an internal body that served Jewish interest, whereas, the Arab Palestinian Population had no internal body serving the same purpose for the Arab Palestinian.

Of course this epitomizes the problems in Palestine.

The purpose of the mandate was to allow Jewish immigration, assist those immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship, and create an independent Palestinian state with equal rights for all. This was to be in accordance with the wishes if the people. May I assume that "the people" included legal immigrants who had obtained Palestinian citizenship.

I don't see where this would have created any major problems. However, the facts on the ground were considerably different. The first major problem was that the immigration policy was created, top down, by foreigners with the virtually unanimous opposition of the people.

This was typical throughout the mandate period. The decisions were made by foreigners while the people were kicked to the curb and left out of the decision making process.

All of this was in violation of the Palestinian's legal rights.

(COMMENT)

In reality, anything south of Turkey, and east of The Sudan and Egypt (not Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arab, The UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, etc) is not a Democracy, where the "right of the people" take precedence. The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee had no intention of creating a Arab Democracy for the Palestinian. The intention was to create another failed state, kingdom or despot. At the time, the concept of the "Ruling Elite" was the order of the day. And it is still the order of the day in most Arab Countries.

Decisions were not made then by the majority, and are not now made by the majority. It was not then, nor is it now, even logical for the Palestinian to press for human rights and self-determination. They have a hard time figuring out who they have in-charge now.

The reason that no state, outside the region, moves against Israel, is that Israel has demonstrated it is not a failed state or another Islamic threat and despotism. The Arab-Palestinians have demonstrated exactly the opposite. Look in any direction, either you see a stable Kingdom (the Ruling Elite), or you see chaos. But you don't see a truly functioning democracy; with the shaky exception of Lebanon.

I honestly have to chuckle when I hear the phrase "violation of the Palestinian's legal rights." What future does the Palestinian have under their own rule. For the last 100 years, what voices they have had have been from the Arab League. There are Palestinians still today that argue that Abu Mazen is not the duly elected voice of the Palestinian; yet, unable to say who is. When was HAMAS last elected?

The "Palestinian's legal rights" is the right to live in chaos.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice dance around my issues. What is the history of Palestine's government since WWI?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Total chaos.

Nice dance around my issues. What is the history of Palestine's government since WWI?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was the de facto representative of the Palestinian People prior to July 1948.

The Arab League (an external influence) established a special Administration to govern the civil affairs of the Palestinians in 8 July 1948, as an arm of the Arab League. This was done largely through the urging of the Mufti of Jerusalem; without the full support of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) or HM the King of Jordan. With the support of Egypt, the struggling Special Administration was strengthened and became the Government of All-Palestine [(or All Palestine Government)(the government of Ahmad Hilmi Abd al-Baqi)] (APG) on 20 September 1948. Jordan and Egypt were locking horns with separate agenda. The Mufti of Jerusalem had established a Jihad Army (AKA: Holy War Army) under the umbrella of the APG. Recognizing the potential implications, HM King Abdullah, ordered his Arab Legion (Jordanian Army) to surround, disarm and dismantle the Mufti's Holy War Army; this happened in October, a month later. At that point, other than what the Egyptians provided, the APG had no financial, administrative support, government offices, or military force structure. After the October '48 Israeli offensive on Egyptian forces, and the Egyptians forced back to reduced Gaza lines, the APG was starved of all external support. By 1952, the APG was dissolved in its entirety, becoming an office of the Egyptian Government. In 1959, President Nassar closed those offices, the last remaining vestiges of the APG.

In 1974, the Arab League (foreign influence) again established a new voice for the Palestinians and declared the PLO the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." In 1988, the PLO became the independent voice of the State of Palestine (SoP/GoP). Since April 2011, the State of Palestine has essentially become a bifurcated government; with HAMAS controlling Gaza and the Fatah controlling the West Bank.

The State of Palestine, is govern by Abu Mazen, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, elected by the PLO-Executive Committee (the Ruling Elite); still the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Total chaos.

Nice dance around my issues. What is the history of Palestine's government since WWI?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was the de facto representative of the Palestinian People prior to July 1948.

After 2 1/2 decades of rendering "administrative assistance and advice" to help the Palestinians to independence, there was still no government in Palestine. Not only did Britain fail its mandate but it trampled every effort the Palestinians made to create their own government.

The Arab League (an external influence) established a special Administration to govern the civil affairs of the Palestinians in 8 July 1948, as an arm of the Arab League. This was done largely through the urging of the Mufti of Jerusalem; without the full support of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) or HM the King of Jordan. With the support of Egypt, the struggling Special Administration was strengthened and became the Government of All-Palestine [(or All Palestine Government)(the government of Ahmad Hilmi Abd al-Baqi)] (APG) on 20 September 1948. Jordan and Egypt were locking horns with separate agenda. The Mufti of Jerusalem had established a Jihad Army (AKA: Holy War Army) under the umbrella of the APG. Recognizing the potential implications, HM King Abdullah, ordered his Arab Legion (Jordanian Army) to surround, disarm and dismantle the Mufti's Holy War Army; this happened in October, a month later. At that point, other than what the Egyptians provided, the APG had no financial, administrative support, government offices, or military force structure. After the October '48 Israeli offensive on Egyptian forces, and the Egyptians forced back to reduced Gaza lines, the APG was starved of all external support. By 1952, the APG was dissolved in its entirety, becoming an office of the Egyptian Government. In 1959, President Nassar closed those offices, the last remaining vestiges of the APG.

Jordan was promised $3M a year for five years and the West Bank if they did not attack Israel in the upcoming war. Jordan's agenda was grabbing the West Bank and that put in opposition to a Palestinian government.

The All Palestine Government was formed in Gaza in September 1948. It was comprised of about 80 Palestinian leaders. They declared independence from the defunct mandate and advised the UN only to have the UN divide Palestine into three areas of occupation the following year. The UN stated that the Palestine question would be addressed later. Well it has been later since 1949 and the UN is still sitting around with its thumb up is ass.

In 1974, the Arab League (foreign influence) again established a new voice for the Palestinians and declared the PLO the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." In 1988, the PLO became the independent voice of the State of Palestine (SoP/GoP). Since April 2011, the State of Palestine has essentially become a bifurcated government; with HAMAS controlling Gaza and the Fatah controlling the West Bank.

The State of Palestine, is govern by Abu Mazen, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, elected by the PLO-Executive Committee (the Ruling Elite); still the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Palestine got its first fully elected constitutional government in January 2006. The elections were judged free and fair by all international observers. The US and Israel starved the Palestinians for electing the wrong people. A new government was proposed by the Mecca agreement in February 2007. That government was legally constituted in March. The US and Israel had that government destroyed by June.

Well, so much for the Palestinians inability to form a government.

Question: Fatah lost the elections. How did it get to be the government in the West Bank?

Most Respectfully,
R