U.N. rights inquiry says Israel must remove settlers

[RoccoR]

Well, I do have to stand corrected on one point.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes!

As were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan...

Do you have a point?

(COMMENT)

Exactly the point.

Lebanon and Syria were created out of the French Mandate; inventions of the Allied Powers through the UN Process.

Jordan was created almost entirely out of the British Mandate; an invention of the Allied Powers and the UN Process.

But the recommendation for the creation of Palestine was rejected by the Palestinian High Council and the Arab League. So it wasn't created.

However, Israel proceeded with the recommendation through the UN Process. Through the outcome of conflict, initiated by the Arab League, its control expanded.

Most Respectfully,
R

But the recommendation for the creation of Palestine was rejected by the Palestinian High Council

No it wasn't.

(CORRECTION)

I should have said the Arab League, the Palestinian High "Committee" and the Supreme Muslim Council.

I often get the High Committee and Supreme Council confused. I am terrible at properly identifying Arab Shemagh.

Again, my apologies if I confused someone.

v/r
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

One can argue endlessly about what one believes the law should be, but intl legal authorities are in agreement today that Occupied Palestine includes East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza and the settlements are unlawful and need to be dismantled. Next item on the agenda, how does the world make Israel comply with intl law and end her Occupation and dismantle all illegal settlements?

 

[RoccoR]

Sherri,

That must be them over at Lafayette Park.

I want to let all know if you are in Washington DC area there is a protest today at 4 pm for Palestine, to demand the release of unlawfully detained Palestinian political prisoner Samer Issawi and other unlawfully detained prisoners, at The White House, put together by Free Samer Issawi Facebook Campaign. Sherri

(CMT)

I saw a gaggle over there but couldn't tell what it was.

v/r
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Sherri,

That must be them over at Lafayette Park.

I want to let all know if you are in Washington DC area there is a protest today at 4 pm for Palestine, to demand the release of unlawfully detained Palestinian political prisoner Samer Issawi and other unlawfully detained prisoners, at The White House, put together by Free Samer Issawi Facebook Campaign. Sherri

(CMT)

I saw a gaggle over there but couldn't tell what it was.

v/r
R

I read The White House, but I do not live close enough to go and I have no idea physically where these kind of protests take place. I have only been to Washington DC once and that was to appear as an attorney at a hearing before a federal court. What stands out to me is remembering all those old huge buildings and navigating around inside of them and finding my way around. I did not have a chance to do much sightseeing, I was too busy. Sherri

 

[Hossfly]

I want to let all know if you are in Washington DC area there is a protest today at 4 pm for Palestine, to demand the release of unlawfully detained Palestinian political prisoner Samer Issawi and other unlawfully detained prisoners, at The White House, put together by Free Samer Issawi Facebook Campaign. Sherri

I wonder if Frau Sherri and her Muslim friends can set up some kind of protest to release all those Christian prisoners being held in Iranian jails just because they are Christians. She can also include the good Christian woman who is being held in a Pakistani jail because of alleged blasphemy since Frau Sherri considers herself "a good Christian woman." I hope that Frau Sherri at least signed the petition to help this Christian woman, Asia Bibi.
PAKISTAN Your signature to save Asia Bibi and Pakistan - Asia News

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow, I can't believe you said that.

But the recommendation for the creation of Palestine was rejected by the Palestinian High Council and the Arab League. So it wasn't created.

No it wasn't.

(COMMENT)

THEN:

The major cause for the 1937 partition proposal, namely that Arab and Jewish interests could not be reconciled, was aggravated in 1947, after both parties rejected the 1946 recommendation by an Anglo-American committee to establish a bi-national state in Palestine under UN trusteeship. While the Jewish community accepted the 1937 and 1947 partition plans, the Palestinian Arab leadership, dominated by the Husseini family, rejected both plans categorically. Indeed, most Palestinians turned down the 1937 design, even though it designated only 20 percent of Palestine to the proposed Jewish state. Furthermore, the Palestinian leadership even rejected the 1939 British White Paper, which had promised them an independent state within ten years while limiting Jewish immigration and turning the Jews into a minority in an Arab Palestinian state.
SOURCE: Palestine-Israel Journal: <b>Why the UN Partition Plan Wasn't Implemented </b>

NOW:

That the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state.

The Palestinian and Arab refusal to accept a UN plan to partition the then-British-controlled mandate of Palestine sparked widespread fighting, then Arab military intervention after Israel declared independence the following year. The Arabs lost the war.

"It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Channel 2 TV in a rare interview to the Israeli media. "But do they (the Israelis) punish us for this mistake for 64 years?"
SOURCE: Abbas: Arab world was wrong to reject 1947 Partition Plan - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

Most Respectfully,
R

It was a partition plan.

They rejected partition. They rejected giving over half of their country to foreigners. As they should have done. As they had the right to do. As any other country would do.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this even less.

It was a partition plan.

They rejected partition. They rejected giving over half of their country to foreigners. As they should have done. As they had the right to do. As any other country would do.

(COMMENT)

They were all partitions. Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, were are portions of the various mandates.

Now, we are just playing with words to shield greediness as the reason. No one gave half the Palestinians country away; it wasn't "theirs" to begin with; and over half (three-quarters) of the Palestine Mandate went to Jordan. It was formerly Ottoman Empire Territory (released under the Treaty) via the Allied Powers Mandate through the UN.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:
(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
(2) With Iraq:
The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.
In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.
The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

If anyone gave it away, it was the Ottoman Empire; "From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia."

Palestine should not consider itself a state or nation. Its was a very small, insignificant, and distant piece of the Ottoman Empire.

For whatever the reason the Palestinian conjures up to justify the rejection, it was a rejection, and one they continued to make over time. The Palestinian became such a security nuisance and threat (violating the Principles of International Law) that they not encouraged, but demanded occupation.

Part I, Section B, UN GA Resolution 181, outlined the "Steps to Independence," and Part II, Section A, UN GA Resolution 181, outlined the boundaries to the proposed Arab State (ie Palestine). A rejection - for whatever the reason, is a rejection.

It is foolish to say, OH! - that's a partition plan. It was all "partitioned" - every piece of the ceded Ottoman Empire. The West Bank and Gaza are about all that is left.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this even less.

It was a partition plan.

They rejected partition. They rejected giving over half of their country to foreigners. As they should have done. As they had the right to do. As any other country would do.

(COMMENT)

They were all partitions. Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, were are portions of the various mandates.

Now, we are just playing with words to shield greediness as the reason. No one gave half the Palestinians country away; it wasn't "theirs" to begin with; and over half (three-quarters) of the Palestine Mandate went to Jordan. It was formerly Ottoman Empire Territory (released under the Treaty) via the Allied Powers Mandate through the UN.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

If anyone gave it away, it was the Ottoman Empire; "From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia."

Palestine should not consider itself a state or nation. Its was a very small, insignificant, and distant piece of the Ottoman Empire.

For whatever the reason the Palestinian conjures up to justify the rejection, it was a rejection, and one they continued to make over time. The Palestinian became such a security nuisance and threat (violating the Principles of International Law) that they not encouraged, but demanded occupation.

Part I, Section B, UN GA Resolution 181, outlined the "Steps to Independence," and Part II, Section A, UN GA Resolution 181, outlined the boundaries to the proposed Arab State (ie Palestine). A rejection - for whatever the reason, is a rejection.

It is foolish to say, OH! - that's a partition plan. It was all "partitioned" - every piece of the ceded Ottoman Empire. The West Bank and Gaza are about all that is left.

Most Respectfully,
R

No one gave half the Palestinians country away; it wasn't "theirs" to begin with;...

Let's see. Palestine no longer belonged to the Ottoman Empire. It did not belong to the British. It did not belong to the people who actually lived there.???

Oh yeah, it belonged to a bunch of foreigner out of Europe.

 

[Hossfly]

Sorry, Rocco, but Tinmore has the edge here, because:

1. During all this conception, rejection and exception, the Arabs had their fingers crossed behind their backs, and also:

2. The British never said,""Simon Sez." That's the Arab mentality. Ain't that right, Tinny?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What?

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this even less.

It was a partition plan.

They rejected partition. They rejected giving over half of their country to foreigners. As they should have done. As they had the right to do. As any other country would do.

(COMMENT)

They were all partitions. Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, were are portions of the various mandates.

Now, we are just playing with words to shield greediness as the reason. No one gave half the Palestinians country away; it wasn't "theirs" to begin with; and over half (three-quarters) of the Palestine Mandate went to Jordan. It was formerly Ottoman Empire Territory (released under the Treaty) via the Allied Powers Mandate through the UN.


If anyone gave it away, it was the Ottoman Empire; "From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia."

Palestine should not consider itself a state or nation. Its was a very small, insignificant, and distant piece of the Ottoman Empire.

For whatever the reason the Palestinian conjures up to justify the rejection, it was a rejection, and one they continued to make over time. The Palestinian became such a security nuisance and threat (violating the Principles of International Law) that they not encouraged, but demanded occupation.

Part I, Section B, UN GA Resolution 181, outlined the "Steps to Independence," and Part II, Section A, UN GA Resolution 181, outlined the boundaries to the proposed Arab State (ie Palestine). A rejection - for whatever the reason, is a rejection.

It is foolish to say, OH! - that's a partition plan. It was all "partitioned" - every piece of the ceded Ottoman Empire. The West Bank and Gaza are about all that is left.

Most Respectfully,
R

No one gave half the Palestinians country away; it wasn't "theirs" to begin with;...

Let's see. Palestine no longer belonged to the Ottoman Empire. It did not belong to the British. It did not belong to the people who actually lived there.???

Oh yeah, it belonged to a bunch of foreigner out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

You're half right. It was mandated. The Principal Allied Powers selected the UK as the Mandatory for Palestine; undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations. It worked for every Middle East nation except fo the Palestinians. They all eventually received independence.

While part of what you say is correct (yet not properly explained), the implication is clearly wrong.

And just as clearly, as it turns out, the Palestinians were not really ready to handle affairs of state; the History is res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "it speaks for itself") on the matter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Point is the land never "belonged" to the Arabs...

70% of it did at the time of the zionist migration.

 

[Hossfly]

Point is the land never "belonged" to the Arabs...

70% of it did at the time of the zionist migration.

And that is why there are countries like Syria and Jordan inhabited by Arabs, land which was once controlled by the British.

 

[MisterBeale]

Did I mention, Israel is the ONLY country ever to refuse to work with a UN human rights enquiry?

Can any of the zionist posters defend that action?

huh. . . yeah. Well, just remember, the UN is basically a puppet and fraud. Let's not be disingenuous. We do remember who set it up and for what purpose right? It's not like it is a democratic organization, yes? It is a tool of the banking cartel and the world power elites. What is good for them may not be in the best interest of the world. In the short run, sure, it's good for the Palestinians, but the Palestinian leaders are just vassals of the global elites, they are slaves just like the European and American people.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is terrific news! But are we going to see some serious justice now for the Lakota or the Sioux? Fat chance now that America's energy needs and it's energy crises has been put on the back burner. It's the Black hills gold rush all over again. There is a heart rending irony to fate, eh?

Do you honestly think they are going to take up an unbiased review of human rights abuses in the US?
UN to investigate plight of US Native Americans for first time
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LA-S64QY3o]Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation - YouTube[/ame]
RIP Russell

Russell Means, Who Clashed With Law as He Fought for Indians, Is Dead at 72
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us/russell-means-american-indian-activist-dies-at-72.html?pagewanted=all


Are Americans more criminal, or is there just more profit in making more laws and locking them up?

 

[MisterBeale]

Really, if we don't stand behind this decision, will we see the Palestinians go the same way as that of the Iroquois. . . .

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What?

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this even less.


(COMMENT)

They were all partitions. Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, were are portions of the various mandates.

Now, we are just playing with words to shield greediness as the reason. No one gave half the Palestinians country away; it wasn't "theirs" to begin with; and over half (three-quarters) of the Palestine Mandate went to Jordan. It was formerly Ottoman Empire Territory (released under the Treaty) via the Allied Powers Mandate through the UN.


If anyone gave it away, it was the Ottoman Empire; "From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia."

Palestine should not consider itself a state or nation. Its was a very small, insignificant, and distant piece of the Ottoman Empire.

For whatever the reason the Palestinian conjures up to justify the rejection, it was a rejection, and one they continued to make over time. The Palestinian became such a security nuisance and threat (violating the Principles of International Law) that they not encouraged, but demanded occupation.

Part I, Section B, UN GA Resolution 181, outlined the "Steps to Independence," and Part II, Section A, UN GA Resolution 181, outlined the boundaries to the proposed Arab State (ie Palestine). A rejection - for whatever the reason, is a rejection.

It is foolish to say, OH! - that's a partition plan. It was all "partitioned" - every piece of the ceded Ottoman Empire. The West Bank and Gaza are about all that is left.

Most Respectfully,
R

No one gave half the Palestinians country away; it wasn't "theirs" to begin with;...

Let's see. Palestine no longer belonged to the Ottoman Empire. It did not belong to the British. It did not belong to the people who actually lived there.???

Oh yeah, it belonged to a bunch of foreigner out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

You're half right. It was mandated. The Principal Allied Powers selected the UK as the Mandatory for Palestine; undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations. It worked for every Middle East nation except fo the Palestinians. They all eventually received independence.

Basically, the League of Nations mandates were to appoint an established country to assist a defined group of people in developing an independent state according to the wishes of the people. The mandate was based on the universally recognized right to self determination as enshrined in international law.

Britain violated the League of Nations Covenant and international law. Instead of creating an independent state for the people according to their wishes, Britain shoved the people aside and catered to the agenda of a group of foreigners.

This entire conflict is based on the violation of international law. Only recently has the world began a push to have these laws enforced. When that happens we will see an end of the conflict.

While part of what you say is correct (yet not properly explained), the implication is clearly wrong.

And just as clearly, as it turns out, the Palestinians were not really ready to handle affairs of state; the History is res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "it speaks for itself") on the matter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

And that is why there are countries like Syria and Jordan inhabited by Arabs, land which was once controlled by the British.

We ain't talkin' bout Syria and Jordan.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is a minor problem with your analysis.

Basically, the League of Nations mandates were to appoint an established country to assist a defined group of people in developing an independent state according to the wishes of the people. The mandate was based on the universally recognized right to self determination as enshrined in international law.

(COMMENT)

This is not correlated in time correctly. (Possibly Bad Research) And, there seems to be a mix-up between which documents say what.

LoN mandates were supervised by the Permanent Mandates Commission. The mandate system was replaced by the UN Trusteeship System in 1946. Each individual Mandate specified the purpose and the authorities under the mandate. The welfare of the Arab and Jewish were address at the time, relative to the purpose of the Mandate.

The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:

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

Read the dates in the underlined passages.

The Mandates were created in 1922. No such passage was in THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS of 1919. Laws cannot be applied retroactively. You cannot pass a law today that makes last years contract illegal, if it was otherwise legal at the time it was created. The UN Charter came into force on 24 October 1945.

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;
SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

You will notice that the actual Article in the Charter does not say that "All peoples have the right to self-determination." That does not come until much, much later, in 1976; in a different form altogether.

Britain violated the League of Nations Covenant and international law. Instead of creating an independent state for the people according to their wishes, Britain shoved the people aside and catered to the agenda of a group of foreigners.

(COMMENT)

This is based on a bad (very bad) assumption. You cannot make an otherwise lawful action taken last year, retroactively illegal today.

This entire conflict is based on the violation of international law. Only recently has the world began a push to have these laws enforced. When that happens we will see an end of the conflict.

(COMMENT)

Still cannot retroactively apply laws that didn't exist at the time of the transaction. The UK did not violate any laws; and the complete transaction was supervised by the LoN/UN through the Permanent Mandates Commission/UN Trusteeship System.

(POST REMARKS)

I honestly don't know where these ideas come from that everyone was conspiring against the poor Palestinians. That wasn't the case at all. That is merely a group that is playing the part of the victim. The UK did everything it was suppose to do and within the parameters of the law as it existed at the time.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is a minor problem with your analysis.

Basically, the League of Nations mandates were to appoint an established country to assist a defined group of people in developing an independent state according to the wishes of the people. The mandate was based on the universally recognized right to self determination as enshrined in international law.

(COMMENT)

This is not correlated in time correctly. (Possibly Bad Research) And, there seems to be a mix-up between which documents say what.

LoN mandates were supervised by the Permanent Mandates Commission. The mandate system was replaced by the UN Trusteeship System in 1946. Each individual Mandate specified the purpose and the authorities under the mandate. The welfare of the Arab and Jewish were address at the time, relative to the purpose of the Mandate.

The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:

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

Read the dates in the underlined passages.

The Mandates were created in 1922. No such passage was in THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS of 1919. Laws cannot be applied retroactively. You cannot pass a law today that makes last years contract illegal, if it was otherwise legal at the time it was created. The UN Charter came into force on 24 October 1945.



You will notice that the actual Article in the Charter does not say that "All peoples have the right to self-determination." That does not come until much, much later, in 1976; in a different form altogether.

Britain violated the League of Nations Covenant and international law. Instead of creating an independent state for the people according to their wishes, Britain shoved the people aside and catered to the agenda of a group of foreigners.

(COMMENT)

This is based on a bad (very bad) assumption. You cannot make an otherwise lawful action taken last year, retroactively illegal today.

This entire conflict is based on the violation of international law. Only recently has the world began a push to have these laws enforced. When that happens we will see an end of the conflict.

(COMMENT)

Still cannot retroactively apply laws that didn't exist at the time of the transaction. The UK did not violate any laws; and the complete transaction was supervised by the LoN/UN through the Permanent Mandates Commission/UN Trusteeship System.

(POST REMARKS)

I honestly don't know where these ideas come from that everyone was conspiring against the poor Palestinians. That wasn't the case at all. That is merely a group that is playing the part of the victim. The UK did everything it was suppose to do and within the parameters of the law as it existed at the time.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Right Of Self determination is a well entrenched principle of intl law you seem to have no understanding of. When the Mandate started over 94% of the land was owned by the Indigenous Palestinian Arab peoples in the land and I think Jews made up no more than 10% of the population. So, the land was held in trust for the Arab indigenous peoples, the British never had sovereignty rights in the land to give it to anyone.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe it is the other way around.

Your opinion is based on false premise. Can you post documents showing when Israel legally acquired the land that it sits on. Show where the Palestinians ceded land to Israel and established borders. (an agreement with Palestine to change its borders)

(COMMENT)

The sovereign control of the territory was never in the hands of the Palestinians. It was in the hands of the Allied Command, acquired from the Ottoman Empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty rights were with the indigenous peoples with the right of self determination over the land, and they still are. That has never changed.

 

[proudveteran06]

Point is the land never "belonged" to the Arabs...

70% of it did at the time of the zionist migration.

Translation; The Jews do not have the right to live there. Typical bigoted , racist, Jew Hating Pro Palestinian