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

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.

(REFERENCES)

* To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; Article 1(2), UN Charter.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART I
Article 1
​

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
​

(COMMENT)

Self-determination is applied to everyone. The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement: "All peoples have the right of self-determination."

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain).

The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.

(REFERENCE)

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties
Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978

Article 2
Use of terms
​

1.For the purposes of the present Convention:

(b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;

(c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;

(f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;
​

(COMMENT)

As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces. Notice that the international law (supra --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory." The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.

(EPILOG)

What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner. In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians (who rejected participation in the Government Administration) have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.

Oh seriously? You are in the "Jews are not a people" camp? Groan.

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

 

[Shusha]

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

Why not? What is your criteria?

 

[P F Tinmore]

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

Why not? What is your criteria?

They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region (Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne).

The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.

How so? What was the violation?

(ANSWER)

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain). Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” (a Successor State to the Mandatory).

Article 1(2) UN Charter

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
​

Article 2(4) UN Charter

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

Article 2(7) UN Charter

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
​

The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied. It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant (until such time as they are able to stand alone) and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation. At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel, Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.

(COMMENT)

In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or Jus ad bellum. This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force. In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...​

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.

Then you have not read the UN charter or the UN resolutions that speak in general terms and apply to all valid nations that are full members. Palestine is a mickey mouse nation that refuses to exercise free determination because it knows it cant survive without being bailed out all the time. That is why the UN constantly reminds them they need have the right to self determination and should be exercising that right as they promised they would in 1988. We are still waiting 28 years later for the Palestinians to stop being violent and firing illegal weapons at Israel, so time to issue demands to them that will result in the loss of what little they have and being sent to whatever islamonazi nation will accept them

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region (Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne).

The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.

How so? What was the violation?

(ANSWER)

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain). Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” (a Successor State to the Mandatory).

Article 1(2) UN Charter

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
​

Article 2(4) UN Charter

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

Article 2(7) UN Charter

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
​

The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied. It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant (until such time as they are able to stand alone) and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation. At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel, Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.

(COMMENT)

In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or Jus ad bellum. This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force. In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain).​

The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.

CORRECT under the Mandate of Palestine set by the lands legal sovereign owners the LoN. The administration could change hands at any time during the term of the mandate

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region (Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne).

The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.

How so? What was the violation?

(ANSWER)

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain). Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” (a Successor State to the Mandatory).

Article 1(2) UN Charter

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
​

Article 2(4) UN Charter

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

Article 2(7) UN Charter

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
​

The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied. It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant (until such time as they are able to stand alone) and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation. At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel, Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.

(COMMENT)

In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or Jus ad bellum. This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force. In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain).​

Britain passed the torch to the UNPC not to Israel.

There are some other problems with your successor state thing.

One, there needs to be a treaty ceding territory to the successor state.

Another is a problem with citizenship.

Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations
The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

And in the time before the British left and the UNPC took control Israel declared its intentions, leaving the UNPC with the land of gaza and the west bank to administer. Only to find it had been invaded and occupied by the arab league.


That was done in 1923 when the LoN declared the land was Jewish.


No problem if you read the section you link to



Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations
1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.



In other words the Jews could do what the arab's did and evict every arab from the state of Israel. Which is why the UN does nothing about Israel , they could not cope with 10 million Palestinian refugees demanding money to buy weapons

 

[Phoenall]

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.

Wait. Wait. Weren't you the one so vehemently arguing not more than a few weeks ago that human rights aren't dependent on someone granting them -- but that they are inherent and inviolable? I'm certain that was you.

So - now you are saying that some people have no rights to self-determination as an inherent human right?

What gives?

Your first statement is correct.

Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.

And the whole proves that you deny the Jews all human rights, civil rights and religious rights you grant to others because of your racism and anti Semitism.

There is only one definition of people and that is human beings singular or multiple that exist on this planet. You want to alter that to take the Jews out of the equation

 

[Phoenall]

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

Why not? What is your criteria?

They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.

So just like the muslims, Christians, Buddhists et al.

So why don't you racially abuse the rest of the world in the same way you do the Jews and deny them their human rights ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.

(REFERENCES)

* To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; Article 1(2), UN Charter.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART I
Article 1
​

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
​

(COMMENT)

Self-determination is applied to everyone. The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement: "All peoples have the right of self-determination."

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain).

The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.

(REFERENCE)

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties
Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978

Article 2
Use of terms
​

1.For the purposes of the present Convention:

(b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;

(c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;

(f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;
​

(COMMENT)

As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces. Notice that the international law (supra --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory." The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.

(EPILOG)

What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner. In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians (who rejected participation in the Government Administration) have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.

Oh seriously? You are in the "Jews are not a people" camp? Groan.

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

They are as much a people as the Palestinians then, or the Americans, Australians, Egyptians etc.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

I don't think you can make that statement. In fact, if you go to school for the Administration and Investigation of Stateless People, you will find that the state of the Jewish People, prior to Independence of Israel, were an example nationals without a territory.

NATIONALITY. That quality or character which arises from. the fact of a person'. beIpnging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, ; especially with' reference to allegiance; while domiCile determines his civil statu8. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. According to Savigny, "nationality" is also used as opposed to "territoriality," for the purpose of distinguishing the case of a nation having no national territory; e. g., the Jews. 8 Save Syst. § 346: Westl. Priv. Int. Law, 5.
​

Oddly enough, the Arabs of Palestine were a people without a territory. They were considered "habitual residences" and former citizens of the Empire. When the first rules for nationality and citizenship were written for the territory under which the Mandate Applied, those rules had to include BOTH Arabs and Jews.

Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.

Oh seriously? You are in the "Jews are not a people" camp? Groan.

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

(REFERENCE)

Law Dictionary: What is NATIONALITY? definition of NATIONALITY (Black's Law Dictionary)
Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

What is NATIONALITY?
That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person’s belonging to a nation or state.Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. According to Savigny, “nationality” is also used as opposed to “territoriality,” for the purpose of distinguishing the case of a nation having no national territory; e.g., the Jews. 8 Sav. Syst. § 346; Westl. Priv. Int. Law, 5. Black´s*Law*Dictionary,*3rd* Edition,*1933, p. 1222.

Nationality is also defined by the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights as:

“[t]he political and legal bond that links a person to a given State and binds him to it with ties of loyalty and fidelity, entitling him to diplomatic protection from that State”. (Castillo‑Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Judgment of May 1999, IACHR [ser.C] No. 52 1999.) Source: UNHCR Handbook - Nationality & Statelessness
​

UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) » Social and Human Sciences »

CITIZENSHIP can be defined as "the status of having the right to participate in and to be represented in politics." 1 It is a collection of rights and obligations that give individuals a formal juridical identity. T.H. Marshall, whose work has long dominated the debates about social citizenship, considered citizenship as "a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who posses the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed."​

(COMMENT)

The Jewish are a people.

Conference of San Remo 1920, international meeting convened at San Remo, to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, considered the Jewish People as a people.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;​

Most people are considered nationals by operation of only one State’s laws – usually either the laws of the State in which the person was born (jus soli) or the laws of the State of which the person’s parents were nationals when the individual was born (jus sanguinis). In the case of the Jewish People, 1922 and 1948, whether or not they immigrated to the Territory under the Mandate with a valid nationality, the Administration of Palestine was responsible for enacting a nationality law to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian Citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

It is important to understand that Nationality is one-half the inverse of Statelessness (Citizenship being the other half). If you look at Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention includes the internationally recognized definition of a stateless person: “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”. It is the case that people who fall within the scope Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention are sometimes referred to as de jure stateless persons.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.

(REFERENCES)

* To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; Article 1(2), UN Charter.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART I
Article 1
​

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
​

(COMMENT)

Self-determination is applied to everyone. The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement: "All peoples have the right of self-determination."

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain).

The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.

(REFERENCE)

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties
Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978

Article 2
Use of terms
​

1.For the purposes of the present Convention:

(b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;

(c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;

(f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;
​

(COMMENT)

As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces. Notice that the international law (supra --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory." The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.

(EPILOG)

What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner. In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians (who rejected participation in the Government Administration) have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so? How does all this refute my post?

We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.

They were not immigrants. They were colonists.

 

[Shusha]

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

Why not? What is your criteria?

They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.

You are ridiculous. Of course the Jewish people meet all the criteria for being a "people" and have a common place of ancestry. And the Jewish people have kept their unique culture alive for thousands of years -- both in and out of that common place of ancestry. The argument that they somehow don't "count" is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.

What people existed in Israel and Judea and Samaria before the invasions of the Romans and the Arabs? Why the Jewish people, of course. Those very same people who continue to speak the same language, and share the same history, and worship at the same holy places, and follow the same laws, and eat the same foods and tell the same stories and celebrate the same life events and holidays.

It is silly in the extreme to argue that this truth is untrue.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

Why not? What is your criteria?

They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.

You are ridiculous. Of course the Jewish people meet all the criteria for being a "people" and have a common place of ancestry. And the Jewish people have kept their unique culture alive for thousands of years -- both in and out of that common place of ancestry. The argument that they somehow don't "count" is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.

What people existed in Israel and Judea and Samaria before the invasions of the Romans and the Arabs? Why the Jewish people, of course. Those very same people who continue to speak the same language, and share the same history, and worship at the same holy places, and follow the same laws, and eat the same foods and tell the same stories and celebrate the same life events and holidays.

It is silly in the extreme to argue that this truth is untrue.

Of course what I posted is still true.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Without the actual assistance of the UK (Balfour Declaration), the Allied Powers decisions at San Remo, the publication of the Mandate (setting the Immigration policy) and the Order in Council (defining the territory and establishing both citizenship and nationality criteria), the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP that published the Recommendations), the UN General Assembly that adopted the recommendations and set in motion that "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the UN Palestine Commission UNPC (the Successor Government to the Mandatory), --- the Jewish People would not have had the opportunity to accomplish what they did. The absence of any one of these ingredients would have stalled the outcome. So, no matter what you believe the Jewish intended or not, it could not have unfolded much differently than the way it did. Even the hostility provided by the Arab Palestinians contributed to the outcome of raising a Jewish State by their constant and ever continuous violence that advanced the termination of the Mandate, as well as the unrest for which they were directly responsible for, AND the aggressor intervention by the Arab League (external) forces which further demonstrated the need for an independent and sovereign state from which the Jewish Culture could defend itself --- as well as everything else, was a contributing factor.

Like some many thing in the universe, the absence of a single ingredient alters the outcome.

(INCIDENTAL)

While the items described thus far can be said to be necessary and sufficient conditions for the political outcome, one of the more convincing and persuasive developments that lead to the acceptance of Israel as the Independent and Sovereign Jewish State was the fact that both the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Irregular Forces) were hostile combat elements which had direct ties to the Special Commandos of the Waffen SS, German Abwehr, as well as the Wehrmacht; right on the heels of the WWII and the Holocaust. This did not sit well with many Allied Contributors and the deNazification Programs. Especially when they were again attempting to use armed aggression to achieve what they could not achieve by peaceful means.

OK, so? How does all this refute my post?

We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.

They were not immigrants. They were colonists.

(COMMENT)

You can frame it any way you want. Your alternative view doesn't alter the political or historical reality.

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration." Political terminology changes gradually over time. Your hidden (unspoken) implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... The state of Israel was a successor state from the dependency of the Mandatory and the UNPC Successor Government. This (in fact) was a solution to the Article 22 criteria for the provisional government to be able to "stand alone;" (dependent one day - independent the next).

As I said before. All these seemingly isolated issues are politically dovetailed together.

(FINALLY)

The attempt to cast a suspicious and demonic shadow on the San Remo authorized immigration program, and portraying the Allied Powers (to which the Ottoman/Turks renounced the title and right to in their Peace Treaty) as wicked and threatening is just a means of propaganda (A/RES/2/110) designed or likely to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, or acts of aggression. While there are a number of causes as to why no peaceful settlement has been sought since 1948, the most significant of these is the belief that Jihad and Violence are the only solutions to the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). If they don't get what they want, they will keep on fighting. More than 90% of the HoAP that claim to be fighting for their "Right-to-Return" have actually never lived in Israel...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Without the actual assistance of the UK (Balfour Declaration), the Allied Powers decisions at San Remo, the publication of the Mandate (setting the Immigration policy) and the Order in Council (defining the territory and establishing both citizenship and nationality criteria), the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP that published the Recommendations), the UN General Assembly that adopted the recommendations and set in motion that "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the UN Palestine Commission UNPC (the Successor Government to the Mandatory), --- the Jewish People would not have had the opportunity to accomplish what they did. The absence of any one of these ingredients would have stalled the outcome. So, no matter what you believe the Jewish intended or not, it could not have unfolded much differently than the way it did. Even the hostility provided by the Arab Palestinians contributed to the outcome of raising a Jewish State by their constant and ever continuous violence that advanced the termination of the Mandate, as well as the unrest for which they were directly responsible for, AND the aggressor intervention by the Arab League (external) forces which further demonstrated the need for an independent and sovereign state from which the Jewish Culture could defend itself --- as well as everything else, was a contributing factor.

Like some many thing in the universe, the absence of a single ingredient alters the outcome.

(INCIDENTAL)

While the items described thus far can be said to be necessary and sufficient conditions for the political outcome, one of the more convincing and persuasive developments that lead to the acceptance of Israel as the Independent and Sovereign Jewish State was the fact that both the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Irregular Forces) were hostile combat elements which had direct ties to the Special Commandos of the Waffen SS, German Abwehr, as well as the Wehrmacht; right on the heels of the WWII and the Holocaust. This did not sit well with many Allied Contributors and the deNazification Programs. Especially when they were again attempting to use armed aggression to achieve what they could not achieve by peaceful means.

OK, so? How does all this refute my post?

We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.

They were not immigrants. They were colonists.

(COMMENT)

You can frame it any way you want. Your alternative view doesn't alter the political or historical reality.

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration." Political terminology changes gradually over time. Your hidden (unspoken) implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... The state of Israel was a successor state from the dependency of the Mandatory and the UNPC Successor Government. This (in fact) was a solution to the Article 22 criteria for the provisional government to be able to "stand alone;" (dependent one day - independent the next).

As I said before. All these seemingly isolated issues are politically dovetailed together.

(FINALLY)

The attempt to cast a suspicious and demonic shadow on the San Remo authorized immigration program, and portraying the Allied Powers (to which the Ottoman/Turks renounced the title and right to in their Peace Treaty) as wicked and threatening is just a means of propaganda (A/RES/2/110) designed or likely to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, or acts of aggression. While there are a number of causes as to why no peaceful settlement has been sought since 1948, the most significant of these is the belief that Jihad and Violence are the only solutions to the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). If they don't get what they want, they will keep on fighting. More than 90% of the HoAP that claim to be fighting for their "Right-to-Return" have actually never lived in Israel...

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."​

Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.

So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you are quite today.

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."

Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.

(COMMENT)

Your statement was right, but the inference was wrong. You need to read the entire response I gave. Including: "Your hidden(unspoken) implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... "

So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

• 2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.
• Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).
• Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
• Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.
• March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you are quite today.

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."

Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.

(COMMENT)

Your statement was right, but the inference was wrong. You need to read the entire response I gave. Including: "Your hidden(unspoken) implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... "

So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

• 2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

• Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

• Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

• Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

• March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.

(REFERENCES)

* To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; Article 1(2), UN Charter.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART I
Article 1
​

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
​

(COMMENT)

Self-determination is applied to everyone. The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement: "All peoples have the right of self-determination."

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent (for the international relations diplomatic and legalities) to the "Predecessor State" (the appointed Mandatory: Britain).

The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.

(REFERENCE)

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties
Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978

Article 2
Use of terms
​

1.For the purposes of the present Convention:

(b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;

(c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;

(f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;
​

(COMMENT)

As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces. Notice that the international law (supra --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory." The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.

(EPILOG)

What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner. In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians (who rejected participation in the Government Administration) have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so? How does all this refute my post?

We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.

They were not immigrants. They were colonists.

Very easy as it shows you have not looked outside the box, and have not realised that Israel is covered by a lot of UN resolutions and the UN charter.

The Ottomans invited the Jews to migrate in the late 1800's, and then the LoN also invited them to migrate and create Jewish NATIONal home in Palestine. The LoN then reduced the original grant with the Jews consent and gave 78% of Palestine to the arab muslims.
It was the publicly stated views of individuals if you look at the evidence, not the whole of the Zionist movement. Which is why the Jewish declaration has this as part of it


WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.




What do the islamonazi declarations say, "KILL THE JEWS" and The land is ours because allah said so.

They were immigrants to their own land and yes they colonised it, the parts that the arab muslims did not want because it was poor soil or hard to cultivate. That is what both invites stated, that the Jews colonise the land, not the arab muslims. And as Churchill said the arab muslims illegally migrated to Palestine because the British had no remit to control their immigration.

 

[Phoenall]

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.

Why not? What is your criteria?

They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.

You are ridiculous. Of course the Jewish people meet all the criteria for being a "people" and have a common place of ancestry. And the Jewish people have kept their unique culture alive for thousands of years -- both in and out of that common place of ancestry. The argument that they somehow don't "count" is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.

What people existed in Israel and Judea and Samaria before the invasions of the Romans and the Arabs? Why the Jewish people, of course. Those very same people who continue to speak the same language, and share the same history, and worship at the same holy places, and follow the same laws, and eat the same foods and tell the same stories and celebrate the same life events and holidays.

It is silly in the extreme to argue that this truth is untrue.

Of course what I posted is still true.

No it is a pack of islamonazi LIES and propaganda, which s all you have

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Without the actual assistance of the UK (Balfour Declaration), the Allied Powers decisions at San Remo, the publication of the Mandate (setting the Immigration policy) and the Order in Council (defining the territory and establishing both citizenship and nationality criteria), the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP that published the Recommendations), the UN General Assembly that adopted the recommendations and set in motion that "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the UN Palestine Commission UNPC (the Successor Government to the Mandatory), --- the Jewish People would not have had the opportunity to accomplish what they did. The absence of any one of these ingredients would have stalled the outcome. So, no matter what you believe the Jewish intended or not, it could not have unfolded much differently than the way it did. Even the hostility provided by the Arab Palestinians contributed to the outcome of raising a Jewish State by their constant and ever continuous violence that advanced the termination of the Mandate, as well as the unrest for which they were directly responsible for, AND the aggressor intervention by the Arab League (external) forces which further demonstrated the need for an independent and sovereign state from which the Jewish Culture could defend itself --- as well as everything else, was a contributing factor.

Like some many thing in the universe, the absence of a single ingredient alters the outcome.

(INCIDENTAL)

While the items described thus far can be said to be necessary and sufficient conditions for the political outcome, one of the more convincing and persuasive developments that lead to the acceptance of Israel as the Independent and Sovereign Jewish State was the fact that both the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Irregular Forces) were hostile combat elements which had direct ties to the Special Commandos of the Waffen SS, German Abwehr, as well as the Wehrmacht; right on the heels of the WWII and the Holocaust. This did not sit well with many Allied Contributors and the deNazification Programs. Especially when they were again attempting to use armed aggression to achieve what they could not achieve by peaceful means.

OK, so? How does all this refute my post?

We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.

They were not immigrants. They were colonists.

(COMMENT)

You can frame it any way you want. Your alternative view doesn't alter the political or historical reality.

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration." Political terminology changes gradually over time. Your hidden (unspoken) implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... The state of Israel was a successor state from the dependency of the Mandatory and the UNPC Successor Government. This (in fact) was a solution to the Article 22 criteria for the provisional government to be able to "stand alone;" (dependent one day - independent the next).

As I said before. All these seemingly isolated issues are politically dovetailed together.

(FINALLY)

The attempt to cast a suspicious and demonic shadow on the San Remo authorized immigration program, and portraying the Allied Powers (to which the Ottoman/Turks renounced the title and right to in their Peace Treaty) as wicked and threatening is just a means of propaganda (A/RES/2/110) designed or likely to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, or acts of aggression. While there are a number of causes as to why no peaceful settlement has been sought since 1948, the most significant of these is the belief that Jihad and Violence are the only solutions to the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). If they don't get what they want, they will keep on fighting. More than 90% of the HoAP that claim to be fighting for their "Right-to-Return" have actually never lived in Israel...

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."​

Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.

So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.

That is right, now take the next step and see that Palestine was never a state, but the LoN mandate of Palestine had all the attributes of a state barring the government and infrastructure of a state. In 1948 the Jews proved they could govern themselves and institute the infrastructure needed to govern.

The land was LoN after the surrender terms were finalised, and by signing the treaties the LoN took control of the land and split it into mandates. These were further split into nations to be assisted by the mandatories in setting up governments and a valid nation. The arab muslims of Palestine constantly showed they did not have the necessary attributes to ever build a nation which is why they demand that world does it for them.