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

[Phoenall]

How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN

Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”




In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.

Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.

For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.

...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​

Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.

When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter

Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.

Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN

Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”




In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.

Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.

For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.

...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​

Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.

When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter

Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.

Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?

You are the one who made the claims like:

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​

It is up to you to support your claim.

 

[Phoenall]

How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN

Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”




In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.

Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.

For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.

...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​

Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.

When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter

Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.

Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?

You are the one who made the claims like:

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​

It is up to you to support your claim.

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

 

[P F Tinmore]

...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​

Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.

When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter

Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.

Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?

You are the one who made the claims like:

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​

It is up to you to support your claim.

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

 

[Phoenall]

When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter

Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.

Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?

You are the one who made the claims like:

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​

It is up to you to support your claim.

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

 

[P F Tinmore]

Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.

Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?

You are the one who made the claims like:

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​

It is up to you to support your claim.

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

 

[Phoenall]

Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?

You are the one who made the claims like:

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​

It is up to you to support your claim.

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?

As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

 

[Mindful]

Near the water tower whose construction was to have such far-reaching consequences, three proto-Aeolic capitals dating back to the 8th century BCE are on display. Proto-Aeolic capitals are rectangular stones featuring a central triangle and decorations on both sides. Of the 25 discovered in Israel, ten were found right here, and provide telling evidence of the ancient palace’s elegance.


The decorative Proto-Aeolic capitals, which once stood on columns, are over 2,500 years old. (Shmuel Bar-Am)

When the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) came to power in the second century BCE, they destroyed the citadel and its lush gardens — apparently in a move to eradicate any trace of foreign rule in Jerusalem and its surroundings. Mikvaot (ritual baths) from a period of Jewish settlement here were fed by water that had previously irrigated the palace’s elaborate gardens.

Fifteen silver coins of a type with which Jews paid a Temple tax to the Romans were discovered inside one of the columbaria. The Jews built columbaria for raising doves that they sold to pilgrims passing here on their way to the Temple in Jerusalem. Engel feels that, like the kibbutz guesthouse of today, there would have been a “hotel” here for overnight lodgers.

The kibbutz outside Jerusalem built atop an ancient palace

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are the one who made the claims like:

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​

It is up to you to support your claim.

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

 

[Hollie]

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Who or what do you believe created international borders for this mythical Pal'istan?

As this has already been delineated for you on many, many occassions, I'm curious why you don't understand and why you simply cut and paste the same material over and over again.

 

[Phoenall]

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Your link is not valid as it is not accepted outside of the authors circle. It is not international law as you and they claim, it is what they want to see as international law.

Current international law says that 22% of palestine is for the Jewish national home, and it is not to be split and given to foreign interests. So why aren't you fighting for this REAL international law to be enacted in full and the islamonazi illegal immigrants deported from Israel and told to stay put



The LoN did not need to annexe any lands as the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne surmounted that criteria that you slip in because you have nothing else. The borders were clearly stated to those of the mandate of palestine, as no nation of palestine has ever existed. The palestinian people until 1960 were the Jews and they claimed soveriegnty of the land in 1948, the ara muslims claimed soveriegnty of trans Jordan in 1946.

Once again you attempt to use modern day international laws retrospectively and fail because it would mean you losing your land and property in America. Your Jew hatred is showing again and you will one day regret ever turning into a nazi scum when the world says enough id enough and starts arresting people like you

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Your link is not valid as it is not accepted outside of the authors circle. It is not international law as you and they claim, it is what they want to see as international law.

Current international law says that 22% of palestine is for the Jewish national home, and it is not to be split and given to foreign interests. So why aren't you fighting for this REAL international law to be enacted in full and the islamonazi illegal immigrants deported from Israel and told to stay put



The LoN did not need to annexe any lands as the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne surmounted that criteria that you slip in because you have nothing else. The borders were clearly stated to those of the mandate of palestine, as no nation of palestine has ever existed. The palestinian people until 1960 were the Jews and they claimed soveriegnty of the land in 1948, the ara muslims claimed soveriegnty of trans Jordan in 1946.

Once again you attempt to use modern day international laws retrospectively and fail because it would mean you losing your land and property in America. Your Jew hatred is showing again and you will one day regret ever turning into a nazi scum when the world says enough id enough and starts arresting people like you

Pffffft, what a load of crap. All of that blabber and not one link.

You can't prove any one of your points.

 

[Hollie]

I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.

You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.

 

[Indeependent]

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.

You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.

Mr. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

 

[Hollie]

How can providing facts be a duck. You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.

You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.

Actually, no. You have been spewing the Islamist politburo line regarding some invented international borders of some mythical place you call Pal'istan.

Obviously, you duck the question of who or what created the "international borders" of your mythical Pal'istan because you know your claim is indefensible.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What question have I not answered and included a link?

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.

You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.

Actually, no. You have been spewing the Islamist politburo line regarding some invented international borders of some mythical place you call Pal'istan.

Obviously, you duck the question of who or what created the "international borders" of your mythical Pal'istan because you know your claim is indefensible.

Actually, history and the UN disagree with you.

 

[Hollie]

Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government. The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.

You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.

Actually, no. You have been spewing the Islamist politburo line regarding some invented international borders of some mythical place you call Pal'istan.

Obviously, you duck the question of who or what created the "international borders" of your mythical Pal'istan because you know your claim is indefensible.

Actually, history and the UN disagree with you.

Still nothing to indicate who or what created the "international borders" for your mythical Pal'istan.

 

[Shusha]

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination....Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.​

The right to sovereignty lies with a people. But the act of sovereignty requires control over a territory and a government to run it.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Current international law understands sovereignty to be vested in the people, giving expression to the right to self-determination....Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.​

The right to sovereignty lies with a people. But the act of sovereignty requires control over a territory and a government to run it.​

Occupations don't count.