The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.

(COMMENT)

The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.

The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.

IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen. In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome. The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.

As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which is by no means clear)," have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone." They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them. And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​

Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.

Indeed, it's called 'Pal'istanian' Welfare Syndrome.

Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an unexplained derogatory comment.

Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
Their legacy is that of a leech off the work and avails of others; takers and non-contributors that are growing in numbers. Their notion of work is narrow and shallow.

In contrast --- Israel has large population centers; marvels in science and contributions to the scientific community, excels in architecture, and progressive and unique art styles. While the US gives Israel aid over a number of given projects, they are investments and help in the preservation of the Jewish Culture, the only nation of its kind. BUT, Israel does not call on the international community to coe together and donate large sums of money with no reasonable expectation on a return to the donor investment.

AGAIN, A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE>

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an unexplained derogatory comment.

Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
Their legacy is that of a leech off the work and avails of others; takers and non-contributors that are growing in numbers. Their notion of work is narrow and shallow.

In contrast --- Israel has large population centers; marvels in science and contributions to the scientific community, excels in architecture, and progressive and unique art styles. While the US gives Israel aid over a number of given projects, they are investments and help in the preservation of the Jewish Culture, the only nation of its kind. BUT, Israel does not call on the international community to coe together and donate large sums of money with no reasonable expectation on a return to the donor investment.

AGAIN, A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE>

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.​

Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an unexplained derogatory comment.

Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
Their legacy is that of a leech off the work and avails of others; takers and non-contributors that are growing in numbers. Their notion of work is narrow and shallow.

In contrast --- Israel has large population centers; marvels in science and contributions to the scientific community, excels in architecture, and progressive and unique art styles. While the US gives Israel aid over a number of given projects, they are investments and help in the preservation of the Jewish Culture, the only nation of its kind. BUT, Israel does not call on the international community to coe together and donate large sums of money with no reasonable expectation on a return to the donor investment.

AGAIN, A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE>

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.​

Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.

That's more of the stereotypical excuses for ineptitude and incompetence that marks Arab-Moslem behavior.

What you can't address is Israel made a unilateral concession in returning Gaza to Arabs-Moslems. In return, Israel was showered with rockets. That was yet another opportunity (yet another refused), for the Arab-Moslem terrorists to make an effort at building a functioning society. As usual, the Arabs-Moslems chose a fascistic, 7th century politico-religious ideology as the preferred alternative to joining the relevant first world.

The willingness of Israel to return land for peace with her neighbors was once again shown to be unworkable when those neighbors are Islamic terrorists. This underlies all interactions with a virulently hateful and self-destructive mindset of the retrograde Islamic terrorist.

 

[montelatici]

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison. The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.

 

[Hollie]

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison. The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.

Actually, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza'istan. Islamic terrorist attacks followed soon after.

It was just another failure by Islamics to be a part of the relevant first world. Maybe have that discussion at your madrassah.

 

[montelatici]

No, the Israelis just made Gaza an outdoor prison maintaining a blockade. Attacking the blockading force is appropriate.

 

[Hollie]

No, the Israelis just made Gaza an outdoor prison maintaining a blockade. Attacking the blockading force is appropriate.

No. You're just unable to committ to the facts.

My, aren't you the stereotypical keyboard gee-hadi. The gee-had of none.

 

[montelatici]

I just state the facts. That's what gets to you.

 

[Hollie]

I just state the facts. That's what gets to you.

What's amusing is your lack of facts.

 

[montelatici]

I only state fact. It is you who are a source of amusement to all by the way you expose your ignorance every time you post.

 

[Hollie]

I only state fact. It is you who are a source of amusement to all by the way you expose your ignorance every time you post.

You have stated no facts. Your opinions are actually refuted by the facts.

You should do some research on the history of the invading / colonizing Turks and later the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors," --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights." This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.

The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.

The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.

HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.

Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison. The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.

(COMMENT)

Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).” This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).

When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
who lived directly around him. This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy"). In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory. Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
​

This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.

• Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.

• Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.
​

It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy. Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.

Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.

ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures. It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The only hostiles are the Jewish invaders.

 

[Hollie]

The only hostiles are the Jewish invaders.

There was no Jewish invasion. Any invasion would be defined by Crusading / colonizing Turks later followed by invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters.

 

[montelatici]

Why would the Turks be "crusading"? Do you have any clue what it means. LOL

The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine. They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.

There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.

 

[Hollie]

Why would the Turks be "crusading"? Do you have any clue what it means. LOL

The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine. They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.

There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.

You're stuttering and mumbling.

Do your homework assignment in the Crusading / colonizing Turks.

We'll then move on to the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / colonizers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors," --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights." This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.

The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.

The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.

HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.

Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison. The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.

(COMMENT)

Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).” This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).

When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
who lived directly around him. This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy"). In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory. Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
​

This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.

• Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.

• Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.
​

It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy. Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.

Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.

ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures. It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​

You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.

 

[montelatici]

Why would the Turks be "crusading"? Do you have any clue what it means. LOL

The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine. They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.

There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.

You're stuttering and mumbling.

Do your homework assignment in the Crusading / colonizing Turks.

We'll then move on to the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / colonizers.

Why do you insist on confirming your ignorance. Answer the question, why would the Turks be "crusading"? Do you have a clue what the word means. LOL

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.

(COMMENT)

The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.

The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.

IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen. In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome. The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.

As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which is by no means clear)," have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone." They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them. And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​

Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.

From the arab league, showing that they did not want the Palestinians to ever have a nation of their own. There was no interference from the west or Israel