Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Not really Coy,more when the opposite of what Hoss said happens,he will be not laughing at all.steveWatch out Hoss,you could be laughing on the other side of you faceWith respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steveP F Tinmore,
Yah, this is very strange approach.
(COMMENT)[
Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923. Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, Palestine had to already exist. Britain had to wait for this to happen before it could come into effect.
The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] and then came into effect on 29 September 1923[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate. First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty. The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration. Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years. It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine. A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920. Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact. Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized. You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
••• If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal. The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918). The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920). The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them. Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
Is that like turning the other cheek?
Why not go back in time and kill Hitler or dismantle the UN.You are missing the point.P F Tinmore,
While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say: "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
(COMMENT)Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
This is actually a trick question.
(COMMENT)You keep confusing terms and definitions.
The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
No, they weren't.
The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)
• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
Most Respectfully,
R
Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
This is the problem.
One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them. Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine. The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers. And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination." It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
Most Respectfully,
R
The colonial settlers imported by the Zionists had no intent to identify themselves as a part of the existing society and were not accepted as part of them. They had no intent on being loyal citizens of Palestine. The base of the Mandate was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.
They did not match the definition of immigrants as stated above. They do, however, match the definition of aliens - foreigners.
I don't see how they should have any rights at all in Palestine.
Another Outstanding Insightful Post from the Main Man....Our Tinnie,Respect Sir......steveYou are missing the point.P F Tinmore,
While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say: "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
(COMMENT)Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
This is actually a trick question.
(COMMENT)You keep confusing terms and definitions.
The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
No, they weren't.
The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)
• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
Most Respectfully,
R
Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
This is the problem.
One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them. Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine. The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers. And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination." It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
Most Respectfully,
R
The colonial settlers imported by the Zionists had no intent to identify themselves as a part of the existing society and were not accepted as part of them. They had no intent on being loyal citizens of Palestine. The base of the Mandate was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.
They did not match the definition of immigrants as stated above. They do, however, match the definition of aliens - foreigners.
I don't see how they should have any rights at all in Palestine.
YawnWhy not go back in time and kill Hitler or dismantle the UN.You are missing the point.P F Tinmore,
While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say: "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
(COMMENT)Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
This is actually a trick question.
(COMMENT)No, they weren't.
The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)
• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
Most Respectfully,
R
Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
This is the problem.
One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them. Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine. The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers. And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination." It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
Most Respectfully,
R
The colonial settlers imported by the Zionists had no intent to identify themselves as a part of the existing society and were not accepted as part of them. They had no intent on being loyal citizens of Palestine. The base of the Mandate was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.
They did not match the definition of immigrants as stated above. They do, however, match the definition of aliens - foreigners.
I don't see how they should have any rights at all in Palestine.
I suppose you think you are funny HaHa......trouble is we still see no answer from the BORE,just unoriginal playground speakMoron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOTWhat were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?
What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
That's all you need to know.
The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
I suppose you think you are funny HaHa......trouble is we still see no answer from the BORE,just unoriginal playground speakMoron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOTWhat were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?
What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
That's all you need to know.
The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
Of course you don't,because you are the Barbarian.....Boring Unoriginal Twat...Get a LifeI suppose you think you are funny HaHa......trouble is we still see no answer from the BORE,just unoriginal playground speakMoron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOTWhat were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?
What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
That's all you need to know.
The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
Real, not funny.
That's why I don't kiss barbarian a$$.
You can't be a Jew...not a trace of wit.Of course you don't,because you are the Barbarian.....Boring Unoriginal Twat...Get a LifeI suppose you think you are funny HaHa......trouble is we still see no answer from the BORE,just unoriginal playground speakMoron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOTWhat were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
That's all you need to know.
The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
Real, not funny.
That's why I don't kiss barbarian a$$.
(COMMENT)So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
(COMMENT)With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations. And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
(COMMENT)According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states. The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
(COMMENT)Oh dear. Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••
ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
montelatici, theliq, et al,
There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.
(COMMENT)So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
I don't think you really believe that. But that suppose (JUST SUPPOSE) that your claim here is true. What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today (here and now)?
A: Probably not much.
• The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home. There is today a Jewish National Home.Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny. Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:
• The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.
• What is the basis in fact: The HoAP claim:
That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:
Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed. There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.
- Compensation, (Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)
- Benefits, (Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)
- Recognition (The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)
- Appreciation (A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)
(COMMENT)With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
Again, this is a variation on a theme. The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II). This was something the Arabs of Palestine said (in no uncertain terms) never recognize the validity of --- or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people. In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.
The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation. The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.
None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.
Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations. And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)
Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.
I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary. One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws. One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces. Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.
The Arab Higher Committee in 1948: "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
The Palestine National Charter of 1968: "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."
No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact). It was intended for their use. Not external use. And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers. Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab. The Arabs had no standing. This was an agreement between the member nations.
Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation. Parties (the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks) of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others (such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey) will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant (understood without being openly expressed). When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.
Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit. The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.
(COMMENT)According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states. The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant. Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant. The Covenant was not true international law. The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US. So were about ≈ 80 nations.
AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.
(COMMENT)Oh dear. Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••
ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" (implied without being stated).
The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.
Most Respectfully,
R
Wrong Yet again MontelCheati.montelatici, theliq, et al,
There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.
(COMMENT)So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
I don't think you really believe that. But that suppose (JUST SUPPOSE) that your claim here is true. What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today (here and now)?
A: Probably not much.
• The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home. There is today a Jewish National Home.Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny. Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:
• The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.
• What is the basis in fact: The HoAP claim:
That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:
Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed. There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.
- Compensation, (Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)
- Benefits, (Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)
- Recognition (The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)
- Appreciation (A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)
(COMMENT)With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
Again, this is a variation on a theme. The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II). This was something the Arabs of Palestine said (in no uncertain terms) never recognize the validity of --- or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people. In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.
The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation. The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.
None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.
Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations. And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)
Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.
I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary. One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws. One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces. Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.
The Arab Higher Committee in 1948: "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
The Palestine National Charter of 1968: "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."
No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact). It was intended for their use. Not external use. And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers. Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab. The Arabs had no standing. This was an agreement between the member nations.
Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation. Parties (the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks) of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others (such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey) will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant (understood without being openly expressed). When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.
Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit. The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.
(COMMENT)According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states. The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant. Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant. The Covenant was not true international law. The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US. So were about ≈ 80 nations.
AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.
(COMMENT)Oh dear. Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••
ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" (implied without being stated).
The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.
Most Respectfully,
R
You are wrong on so many counts. Let's just address two.
1. The "Arabs" had "no-standing".
Of course they had standing, as the "inhabitants" of the territories formerly governed by the losing powers, they were the only ones to have "standing". Non-inhabitants, had no standing. I don't understand if you are playing dumb or believe you will fool others with such a ridiculous statement.
2. The first intent of the Allies was the establishment of a Jewish Home. The first intent of the Allies, with respect 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" was as stated in the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. There is no mention of a Jewish Home. Any notion of colonizing one of the territories (which included Palestine) mentioned in Article 22 with belligerent and hostile non-inhabitants (the Jews) would, contravene the intent of the Allies to ensure the "well-being and development of such peoples". As such, Britain was obliged to abrogate any prior agreement that was in contravention of the Covenant, as per Article 20 of the Covenant, prior to signing the Covenant.
It is so clear, direct and simple that no manner of obfuscation or fanatical leaps of logical fantasy can change the obvious.
"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.
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."
"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.montelatici, theliq, et al,
There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.
(COMMENT)So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
I don't think you really believe that. But that suppose (JUST SUPPOSE) that your claim here is true. What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today (here and now)?
A: Probably not much.
• The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home. There is today a Jewish National Home.Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny. Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:
• The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.
• What is the basis in fact: The HoAP claim:
That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:
Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed. There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.
- Compensation, (Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)
- Benefits, (Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)
- Recognition (The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)
- Appreciation (A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)
(COMMENT)With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
Again, this is a variation on a theme. The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II). This was something the Arabs of Palestine said (in no uncertain terms) never recognize the validity of --- or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people. In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.
The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation. The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.
None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.
Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations. And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
(COMMENT)
Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.
I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary. One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws. One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces. Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.
The Arab Higher Committee in 1948: "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
The Palestine National Charter of 1968: "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."
No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact). It was intended for their use. Not external use. And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers. Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab. The Arabs had no standing. This was an agreement between the member nations.
Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation. Parties (the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks) of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others (such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey) will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant (understood without being openly expressed). When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.
Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit. The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.
(COMMENT)According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states. The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant. Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant. The Covenant was not true international law. The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US. So were about ≈ 80 nations.
AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.
(COMMENT)Oh dear. Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••
ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" (implied without being stated).
The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
Wrong Yet again MontelCheati.montelatici, theliq, et al,
There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.
(COMMENT)So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
I don't think you really believe that. But that suppose (JUST SUPPOSE) that your claim here is true. What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today (here and now)?
A: Probably not much.
• The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home. There is today a Jewish National Home.Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny. Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:
• The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.
• What is the basis in fact: The HoAP claim:
That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:
Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed. There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.
- Compensation, (Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)
- Benefits, (Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)
- Recognition (The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)
- Appreciation (A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)
(COMMENT)With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
Again, this is a variation on a theme. The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II). This was something the Arabs of Palestine said (in no uncertain terms) never recognize the validity of --- or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people. In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.
The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation. The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.
None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.
Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations. And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)
Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.
I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary. One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws. One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces. Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.
The Arab Higher Committee in 1948: "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
The Palestine National Charter of 1968: "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."
No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact). It was intended for their use. Not external use. And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers. Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab. The Arabs had no standing. This was an agreement between the member nations.
Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation. Parties (the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks) of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others (such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey) will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant (understood without being openly expressed). When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.
Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit. The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.
(COMMENT)According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states. The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant. Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant. The Covenant was not true international law. The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US. So were about ≈ 80 nations.
AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.
(COMMENT)Oh dear. Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••
ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" (implied without being stated).
The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.
Most Respectfully,
R
You are wrong on so many counts. Let's just address two.
1. The "Arabs" had "no-standing".
Of course they had standing, as the "inhabitants" of the territories formerly governed by the losing powers, they were the only ones to have "standing". Non-inhabitants, had no standing. I don't understand if you are playing dumb or believe you will fool others with such a ridiculous statement.
2. The first intent of the Allies was the establishment of a Jewish Home. The first intent of the Allies, with respect 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" was as stated in the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. There is no mention of a Jewish Home. Any notion of colonizing one of the territories (which included Palestine) mentioned in Article 22 with belligerent and hostile non-inhabitants (the Jews) would, contravene the intent of the Allies to ensure the "well-being and development of such peoples". As such, Britain was obliged to abrogate any prior agreement that was in contravention of the Covenant, as per Article 20 of the Covenant, prior to signing the Covenant.
It is so clear, direct and simple that no manner of obfuscation or fanatical leaps of logical fantasy can change the obvious.
"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.
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."
"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
You always take documents Out of Context of other previous and contemporary agreements.
03b- Mandate Violates
Myth: The “Mandate” Violates Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations
The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addressed Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the “Mandate for Palestine” violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,45 arguing that they are the communities mentioned in paragraph 4:
“As to the claim, argued before us by Arab witnesses, that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because it is not in accordance with paragraph 4 thereof, we would point out (a) that the provisional recognition of ‘certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire’ as independent nations is permissive; the words are ‘can be provisionally recognised,’ not ‘will’ or ‘shall’: (b) that the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the Mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League:
(c) that the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Balfour Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have to be treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sèvres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate.
“This particular question is of less practical importance than it might seem to be. For Article 2 of the Mandate requires ‘the development of self-governing institutions’; and, read in the light of the general intention of the Mandate System (of which something will be said presently), this requirement implies, in our judgment, the ultimate establishment of independence.
“(3) The field [Territory] in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field [Territory] under Article 25.” [E.H., That excluded 77% of historic Palestine—the territory east of the Jordan River, what became later Trans-Jordan].46
The Treaty of Sèvres, in Section VII, Articles 94 and 95, makes it clear in each case who are the inhabitants referred to in Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Article 94 distinctly indicates that Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applies to the Arab inhabitants living within the areas covered by the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia. The Article reads:
“The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.
“Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone...”
Article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres, however, makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was NOT to be applied to the Arab inhabitants living within the area to be delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine,” but Only to the Jews. The Article reads:
“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…”47
The second and third paragraphs of the preamble of the “Mandate for Palestine” therefore follow and read:
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country; and
“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”48
Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres and the “Mandate for Palestine” make it clear:
The “inhabitants” of the territory for whom the “Mandate for Palestine” was created, who according to the Mandate were “not yet able” to govern themselves and for whom self-determination was a “sacred trust,” were NOT Palestinians, or even Arabs. The “Mandate for Palestine” was created by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations, for the Jewish People.
-
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well this is not exactly true. This is an appeal for sympathy.
(COMMENT)1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians. That would not be correct.
The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people. What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
And you smear them and call them names for merely asserting their rights.P F Tinmore, et al,
Well this is not exactly true. This is an appeal for sympathy.
(COMMENT)1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians. That would not be correct.
The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people. What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well this is not exactly true. This is an appeal for sympathy.
(COMMENT)1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians. That would not be correct.
The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people. What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians were the "inhabitants" that were granted the rights enunciated in the Covenant of the League of Nations. This was articulated in UN A/364, to wit:
149............On the contrary, the provisions of the Mandate should preclude any systematic use of force for the purpose of its application. In its preamble, the Mandate states that the Principal Allied Powers agreed to entrust Palestine to a mandatory Power for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.147/ The guiding principle of that Article was the well-being of peoples not yet able to stand by themselves.
150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant.
A/364 of 3 September 1947
You really love that external interference.montelatici,
P F Tinmore, et al,
My, but I have to chuckle at this.
But let's start out by remembering what exactly A/364 of 3 September is (exactly). It is the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) Report which contained the set of Recommendations the General Assembly used to promulgate and ultimately adopt UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II); better known as the Partition Plan.
But you cannot use this report to solely support one perspective or the other. The report addresses BOTH points of view. Just as the does say what our friends have highlighted and bolded --- it also present the opposite point of view for the UN General Assembly to consider before rendering a decision:
145. Nevertheless, neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Mandate precluded the eventual creation of a Jewish State. The Mandate in its Preamble recognized, with regard to the Jewish people, the "grounds for reconstituting their National Home". By providing, as one of the main obligations of the mandatory Power the facilitation of Jewish immigration, it conferred upon the Jews an opportunity, through large-scale immigration, to create eventually a Jewish State with a Jewish majority.
146. Both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate involved international commitments to the Jewish people as a whole. It was obvious that these commitments were not limited only to the Jewish population of Palestine, since at the time there were only some 80,000 Jews there.
147. This would imply that all Jews in the world who wish to go to Palestine would have the right to do so. This view, however, would seem to be unrealistic in the sense that a country as small and poor as Palestine could never accommodate all the Jews in the world.
And the Report contains perspectives that are neither on the side of the Jewish or Arab:
180. The spirit which prevailed at the creation of the Mandate for Palestine was explained by Lord Balfour at the opening of the eighteenth session of the Council of the League of Nations as follows:
"The mandates are not our creation. The mandates are neither made by the League, nor can they, in substance, be altered by the League. . . .
"Remember that a mandate is a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they obtained over conquered territories. It is imposed by the Allied and Associated Powers themselves in the interests of what they conceived to be the general welfare of mankind and they have asked the League of Nations to assist them in seeing that this policy should be carried into effect. But the League of Nations is not the author of the policy, but its instrument. It is not they who have invented the system of mandates; it is not they who have laid down the general lines on which the three classes of mandates are framed. Their duty, let me repeat, is to see, in the first place, that the terms of the mandates conform to the principles of the Covenant, and in the second place, that these terms shall, in fact, regulate the policy of the mandatory Powers in the mandated territories.
"Now, it is clear from this statement, that both those who hope and those who fear that what, I believe, has been called the Balfour Declaration is going to suffer substantial modifications, are in error. The fears are not justified; the hopes are not justified. . . . The general lines of policy stand and must stand.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well this is not exactly true. This is an appeal for sympathy.
(COMMENT)1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians. That would not be correct.
The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people. What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians were the "inhabitants" that were granted the rights enunciated in the Covenant of the League of Nations. This was articulated in UN A/364, to wit:
149............On the contrary, the provisions of the Mandate should preclude any systematic use of force for the purpose of its application. In its preamble, the Mandate states that the Principal Allied Powers agreed to entrust Palestine to a mandatory Power for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.147/ The guiding principle of that Article was the well-being of peoples not yet able to stand by themselves.
150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant.
A/364 of 3 September 1947
(COMMENT)
Don't get overly excited about the bold part by our pro-Palestinian friends. After the members weighed all the testimony, to include the
"Political History of Palestine under British Administration" A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947, the General Assembly still made their decision that the Arab Palestinian did try to undermine and attempted to defy through the used of military force, the resolution of the General Assembly.
Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (UN Document A/364 3 September 1947) including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee; that being General Assembly Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947.
Most Respectfully,
R
