What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Hollie]

The state of Palestine was established by international treaties in 1924.

No. It was not. Why continue with that nonsense?

A people do not need permission to declare independence.

Israel thanks you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

At the outset here, let's make a certain point perfectly clear:

Don't confuse territorial control, sovereignty, or the right to self-determination - with - ownership of private property. They are two different claims (entirely!).

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

(COMMENT)

Longevity as tenants on property:

• Does not necessarily establish it as → "their Land."

• Immigration and settlement by the Jewish People does not make a prima facie case for land theft (as in: "stole it"). As the plaintiff, the Arab Palestinian has not met the requirements for presenting a
the initial view of something, accepted as true until disproven, for a case to be made.
​

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

(COMMENT)

Well, let's answer this in the simplified order:

• (1) “Neither the British or the French authorized or directed the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) to act on their behalf in any fashion.”;
• (2) “Neither the British or the French granted authority by which the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) were place in a position of authority over the Arab Palestinian.”;
• (3) “There was no document granting the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) authority, except as authorized by the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.”​

In fact, in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government in three distinct stages. The second stage would have been the creation of a Legislative Council. But without an Arab majority in participation, this proved to be impossible. No matter how many time the Arab Palestinians were invited to participate in government, the offers were categorically rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians). From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. There was NO PROXY.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was a Statement of Principles were in the background in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles; not the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the concept of self-determination was introduced in another form and just as applicable to the Ottoman/Turkish Theater of War as it was in the War with the Central Powers. But the idea of self-determination is a


Self-determination is NOT a "positive right" require the Allied Powers to provide the Arab Palestinians with either a good or service (political, tangible or intangible). On the other hand, self-determination is a "negative right," and only requires the Allied Powers to NOT interfere with Arab Palestinians self-determination. The problem here is, that the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination" does NOT mean that the Arab Palestinian can come in and just take the territory under the mandate with was lawfully relinquished to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know why they keep bringing that up. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
​

The Arab Palestinians did NOT have a state. The treaty was between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

(COMMENT)

The British did not have any "colonies" in the Middle East.

I'm not sure what the rest of that means.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense...

Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne

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.
​

KEY: Treaty does NOT renounces all rights and title to the Arab Palestinian; but to the parties concerned (meaning parties to the Treaty).

Every nation in the civilized world understood what was said here. The Arab Palestinian can pretend that the Ottoman Sovereign renounced the rights and title to them, but it is simply NOT true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The state of Palestine was established by international treaties in 1924.

No. It was not. Why continue with that nonsense?

A people do not need permission to declare independence.

Israel thanks you.

It wasn't? link?

 

[Shusha]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

At the outset here, let's make a certain point perfectly clear:

Don't confuse territorial control, sovereignty, or the right to self-determination - with - ownership of private property. They are two different claims (entirely!).

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

(COMMENT)

Longevity as tenants on property:

• Does not necessarily establish it as → "their Land."

• Immigration and settlement by the Jewish People does not make a prima facie case for land theft (as in: "stole it"). As the plaintiff, the Arab Palestinian has not met the requirements for presenting a
the initial view of something, accepted as true until disproven, for a case to be made.
​

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

(COMMENT)

Well, let's answer this in the simplified order:

• (1) “Neither the British or the French authorized or directed the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) to act on their behalf in any fashion.”;
• (2) “Neither the British or the French granted authority by which the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) were place in a position of authority over the Arab Palestinian.”;
• (3) “There was no document granting the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) authority, except as authorized by the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.”​

In fact, in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government in three distinct stages. The second stage would have been the creation of a Legislative Council. But without an Arab majority in participation, this proved to be impossible. No matter how many time the Arab Palestinians were invited to participate in government, the offers were categorically rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians). From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. There was NO PROXY.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was a Statement of Principles were in the background in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles; not the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the concept of self-determination was introduced in another form and just as applicable to the Ottoman/Turkish Theater of War as it was in the War with the Central Powers. But the idea of self-determination is a


Self-determination is NOT a "positive right" require the Allied Powers to provide the Arab Palestinians with either a good or service (political, tangible or intangible). On the other hand, self-determination is a "negative right," and only requires the Allied Powers to NOT interfere with Arab Palestinians self-determination. The problem here is, that the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination" does NOT mean that the Arab Palestinian can come in and just take the territory under the mandate with was lawfully relinquished to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know why they keep bringing that up. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
​

The Arab Palestinians did NOT have a state. The treaty was between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

(COMMENT)

The British did not have any "colonies" in the Middle East.

I'm not sure what the rest of that means.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense...

Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne

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.
​

KEY: Treaty does NOT renounces all rights and title to the Arab Palestinian; but to the parties concerned (meaning parties to the Treaty).

Every nation in the civilized world understood what was said here. The Arab Palestinian can pretend that the Ottoman Sovereign renounced the rights and title to them, but it is simply NOT true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

At the outset here, let's make a certain point perfectly clear:

Don't confuse territorial control, sovereignty, or the right to self-determination - with - ownership of private property. They are two different claims (entirely!).

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

(COMMENT)

Longevity as tenants on property:

• Does not necessarily establish it as → "their Land."

• Immigration and settlement by the Jewish People does not make a prima facie case for land theft (as in: "stole it"). As the plaintiff, the Arab Palestinian has not met the requirements for presenting a
the initial view of something, accepted as true until disproven, for a case to be made.
​

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

(COMMENT)

Well, let's answer this in the simplified order:

• (1) “Neither the British or the French authorized or directed the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) to act on their behalf in any fashion.”;
• (2) “Neither the British or the French granted authority by which the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) were place in a position of authority over the Arab Palestinian.”;
• (3) “There was no document granting the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) authority, except as authorized by the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.”​

In fact, in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government in three distinct stages. The second stage would have been the creation of a Legislative Council. But without an Arab majority in participation, this proved to be impossible. No matter how many time the Arab Palestinians were invited to participate in government, the offers were categorically rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians). From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. There was NO PROXY.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was a Statement of Principles were in the background in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles; not the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the concept of self-determination was introduced in another form and just as applicable to the Ottoman/Turkish Theater of War as it was in the War with the Central Powers. But the idea of self-determination is a


Self-determination is NOT a "positive right" require the Allied Powers to provide the Arab Palestinians with either a good or service (political, tangible or intangible). On the other hand, self-determination is a "negative right," and only requires the Allied Powers to NOT interfere with Arab Palestinians self-determination. The problem here is, that the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination" does NOT mean that the Arab Palestinian can come in and just take the territory under the mandate with was lawfully relinquished to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know why they keep bringing that up. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
​

The Arab Palestinians did NOT have a state. The treaty was between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

(COMMENT)

The British did not have any "colonies" in the Middle East.

I'm not sure what the rest of that means.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense...

Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne

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.
​

KEY: Treaty does NOT renounces all rights and title to the Arab Palestinian; but to the parties concerned (meaning parties to the Treaty).

Every nation in the civilized world understood what was said here. The Arab Palestinian can pretend that the Ottoman Sovereign renounced the rights and title to them, but it is simply NOT true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

At the outset here, let's make a certain point perfectly clear:

Don't confuse territorial control, sovereignty, or the right to self-determination - with - ownership of private property. They are two different claims (entirely!).

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

(COMMENT)

Longevity as tenants on property:

• Does not necessarily establish it as → "their Land."

• Immigration and settlement by the Jewish People does not make a prima facie case for land theft (as in: "stole it"). As the plaintiff, the Arab Palestinian has not met the requirements for presenting a
the initial view of something, accepted as true until disproven, for a case to be made.
​

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

(COMMENT)

Well, let's answer this in the simplified order:

• (1) “Neither the British or the French authorized or directed the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) to act on their behalf in any fashion.”;
• (2) “Neither the British or the French granted authority by which the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) were place in a position of authority over the Arab Palestinian.”;
• (3) “There was no document granting the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) authority, except as authorized by the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.”​

In fact, in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government in three distinct stages. The second stage would have been the creation of a Legislative Council. But without an Arab majority in participation, this proved to be impossible. No matter how many time the Arab Palestinians were invited to participate in government, the offers were categorically rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians). From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. There was NO PROXY.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was a Statement of Principles were in the background in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles; not the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the concept of self-determination was introduced in another form and just as applicable to the Ottoman/Turkish Theater of War as it was in the War with the Central Powers. But the idea of self-determination is a


Self-determination is NOT a "positive right" require the Allied Powers to provide the Arab Palestinians with either a good or service (political, tangible or intangible). On the other hand, self-determination is a "negative right," and only requires the Allied Powers to NOT interfere with Arab Palestinians self-determination. The problem here is, that the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination" does NOT mean that the Arab Palestinian can come in and just take the territory under the mandate with was lawfully relinquished to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know why they keep bringing that up. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
​

The Arab Palestinians did NOT have a state. The treaty was between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

(COMMENT)

The British did not have any "colonies" in the Middle East.

I'm not sure what the rest of that means.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense...

Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne

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.
​

KEY: Treaty does NOT renounces all rights and title to the Arab Palestinian; but to the parties concerned (meaning parties to the Treaty).

Every nation in the civilized world understood what was said here. The Arab Palestinian can pretend that the Ottoman Sovereign renounced the rights and title to them, but it is simply NOT true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

It doesn't even mention Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Whenever I ask when Israel legally acquired the land it occupied in 1948 everybody starts dancing.

Your cognitive disconnect is simply astonishing. This has been addressed repeatedly and thoroughly by several posters. You even JUST said yourself that:

A people do not need permission to declare independence.

As Rocco states above:

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

At the outset here, let's make a certain point perfectly clear:

Don't confuse territorial control, sovereignty, or the right to self-determination - with - ownership of private property. They are two different claims (entirely!).

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

(COMMENT)

Longevity as tenants on property:

• Does not necessarily establish it as → "their Land."

• Immigration and settlement by the Jewish People does not make a prima facie case for land theft (as in: "stole it"). As the plaintiff, the Arab Palestinian has not met the requirements for presenting a
the initial view of something, accepted as true until disproven, for a case to be made.
​

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

(COMMENT)

Well, let's answer this in the simplified order:

• (1) “Neither the British or the French authorized or directed the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) to act on their behalf in any fashion.”;
• (2) “Neither the British or the French granted authority by which the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) were place in a position of authority over the Arab Palestinian.”;
• (3) “There was no document granting the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) authority, except as authorized by the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.”​

In fact, in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government in three distinct stages. The second stage would have been the creation of a Legislative Council. But without an Arab majority in participation, this proved to be impossible. No matter how many time the Arab Palestinians were invited to participate in government, the offers were categorically rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians). From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. There was NO PROXY.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was a Statement of Principles were in the background in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles; not the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the concept of self-determination was introduced in another form and just as applicable to the Ottoman/Turkish Theater of War as it was in the War with the Central Powers. But the idea of self-determination is a


Self-determination is NOT a "positive right" require the Allied Powers to provide the Arab Palestinians with either a good or service (political, tangible or intangible). On the other hand, self-determination is a "negative right," and only requires the Allied Powers to NOT interfere with Arab Palestinians self-determination. The problem here is, that the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination" does NOT mean that the Arab Palestinian can come in and just take the territory under the mandate with was lawfully relinquished to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know why they keep bringing that up. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
​

The Arab Palestinians did NOT have a state. The treaty was between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

(COMMENT)

The British did not have any "colonies" in the Middle East.

I'm not sure what the rest of that means.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense...

Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne

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.
​

KEY: Treaty does NOT renounces all rights and title to the Arab Palestinian; but to the parties concerned (meaning parties to the Treaty).

Every nation in the civilized world understood what was said here. The Arab Palestinian can pretend that the Ottoman Sovereign renounced the rights and title to them, but it is simply NOT true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

It doesn't even mention Palestine.

Stupid post.

It doesn't mention Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Jordan either.-

 

[Shusha]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

At the outset here, let's make a certain point perfectly clear:

Don't confuse territorial control, sovereignty, or the right to self-determination - with - ownership of private property. They are two different claims (entirely!).

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

(COMMENT)

Longevity as tenants on property:

• Does not necessarily establish it as → "their Land."

• Immigration and settlement by the Jewish People does not make a prima facie case for land theft (as in: "stole it"). As the plaintiff, the Arab Palestinian has not met the requirements for presenting a
the initial view of something, accepted as true until disproven, for a case to be made.
​

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

(COMMENT)

Well, let's answer this in the simplified order:

• (1) “Neither the British or the French authorized or directed the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) to act on their behalf in any fashion.”;
• (2) “Neither the British or the French granted authority by which the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) were place in a position of authority over the Arab Palestinian.”;
• (3) “There was no document granting the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) authority, except as authorized by the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.”​

In fact, in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government in three distinct stages. The second stage would have been the creation of a Legislative Council. But without an Arab majority in participation, this proved to be impossible. No matter how many time the Arab Palestinians were invited to participate in government, the offers were categorically rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians). From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. There was NO PROXY.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was a Statement of Principles were in the background in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles; not the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the concept of self-determination was introduced in another form and just as applicable to the Ottoman/Turkish Theater of War as it was in the War with the Central Powers. But the idea of self-determination is a


Self-determination is NOT a "positive right" require the Allied Powers to provide the Arab Palestinians with either a good or service (political, tangible or intangible). On the other hand, self-determination is a "negative right," and only requires the Allied Powers to NOT interfere with Arab Palestinians self-determination. The problem here is, that the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination" does NOT mean that the Arab Palestinian can come in and just take the territory under the mandate with was lawfully relinquished to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know why they keep bringing that up. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
​

The Arab Palestinians did NOT have a state. The treaty was between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

(COMMENT)

The British did not have any "colonies" in the Middle East.

I'm not sure what the rest of that means.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense...

Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne

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.
​

KEY: Treaty does NOT renounces all rights and title to the Arab Palestinian; but to the parties concerned (meaning parties to the Treaty).

Every nation in the civilized world understood what was said here. The Arab Palestinian can pretend that the Ottoman Sovereign renounced the rights and title to them, but it is simply NOT true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

Yeah, yeah, you are predictable. So, predictable I ALMOST, included in my last post, "and no Article 30 doesn't say what you think it says".

Article 30 does not say what you think it says.

1. It does not create a new state.
2. It does not transfer any territory to any state, let alone a new one.

All Article 30 says is that Turkish subjects in the territories which were transferred (to Italy, for example, in Article 15) will cease to be Turkish citizens and become citizens of the new territorial sovereign (Italy, for example).

 

[Shusha]

It doesn't mention Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Jordan either.-

It DOES, however, mention ALL the States to whom territory was actually transferred.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

At the outset here, let's make a certain point perfectly clear:

Don't confuse territorial control, sovereignty, or the right to self-determination - with - ownership of private property. They are two different claims (entirely!).

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

(COMMENT)

Longevity as tenants on property:

• Does not necessarily establish it as → "their Land."

• Immigration and settlement by the Jewish People does not make a prima facie case for land theft (as in: "stole it"). As the plaintiff, the Arab Palestinian has not met the requirements for presenting a
the initial view of something, accepted as true until disproven, for a case to be made.
​

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

(COMMENT)

Well, let's answer this in the simplified order:

• (1) “Neither the British or the French authorized or directed the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) to act on their behalf in any fashion.”;
• (2) “Neither the British or the French granted authority by which the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) were place in a position of authority over the Arab Palestinian.”;
• (3) “There was no document granting the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) authority, except as authorized by the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.”​

In fact, in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government in three distinct stages. The second stage would have been the creation of a Legislative Council. But without an Arab majority in participation, this proved to be impossible. No matter how many time the Arab Palestinians were invited to participate in government, the offers were categorically rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians). From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. There was NO PROXY.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was a Statement of Principles were in the background in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles; not the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the concept of self-determination was introduced in another form and just as applicable to the Ottoman/Turkish Theater of War as it was in the War with the Central Powers. But the idea of self-determination is a


Self-determination is NOT a "positive right" require the Allied Powers to provide the Arab Palestinians with either a good or service (political, tangible or intangible). On the other hand, self-determination is a "negative right," and only requires the Allied Powers to NOT interfere with Arab Palestinians self-determination. The problem here is, that the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination" does NOT mean that the Arab Palestinian can come in and just take the territory under the mandate with was lawfully relinquished to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know why they keep bringing that up. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
​

The Arab Palestinians did NOT have a state. The treaty was between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

(COMMENT)

The British did not have any "colonies" in the Middle East.

I'm not sure what the rest of that means.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense...

Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne

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.
​

KEY: Treaty does NOT renounces all rights and title to the Arab Palestinian; but to the parties concerned (meaning parties to the Treaty).

Every nation in the civilized world understood what was said here. The Arab Palestinian can pretend that the Ottoman Sovereign renounced the rights and title to them, but it is simply NOT true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

The Treaty of Lausanne says no such thing.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

Yeah, yeah, you are predictable. So, predictable I ALMOST, included in my last post, "and no Article 30 doesn't say what you think it says".

Article 30 does not say what you think it says.

1. It does not create a new state.
2. It does not transfer any territory to any state, let alone a new one.

All Article 30 says is that Turkish subjects in the territories which were transferred (to Italy, for example, in Article 15) will cease to be Turkish citizens and become citizens of the new territorial sovereign (Italy, for example).

It doesn't say that.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Hollie]

The state of Palestine was established by international treaties in 1924.

No. It was not. Why continue with that nonsense?

A people do not need permission to declare independence.

Israel thanks you.

It wasn't? link?

No. It wasn't. You suffer from the affliction of selective editing and parsing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

There are now some 215 instances of your nonsense claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your Magical Kingdom of Pally'land and those nonsense claims have been false every time.

Why do you continue to make false claims?

 

[Shusha]

And seriously, let's think this through. Why is it, do you think, that territory wasn't actually transferred to a non-existent legal entity? Here's an idea, because you can't transfer territory to something that does't legally exist.

 

[Shusha]

Article 30 does not say what you think it says.

1. It does not create a new state.
2. It does not transfer any territory to any state, let alone a new one.

All Article 30 says is that Turkish subjects in the territories which were transferred (to Italy, for example, in Article 15) will cease to be Turkish citizens and become citizens of the new territorial sovereign (Italy, for example).

It doesn't say that.

But thanks for playing.

OMG. Again, the cognitive disconnect is astonishing. That is EXACTLY what it says.

There is nothing in Article 30 which creates any new states nor transfers territory to any new states. You are unbelievable. It's like arguing that Article 30 transferred territory to the State of Rivendell and the State of Lothlorien. And Oz.

Made even more ridiculous by your claim that Article 30 transferred territory to Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Rivendell, Lothlorien, and Oz even though none of those non-existent states are mentioned (you know, because they didn't exist). But territory could not POSSIBLY have transferred to Israel. Because ... shrug ... "Israel isn't mentioned".

You just get more and more ridiculous.

 

[Shusha]

We've established the issue. What the Zionists are doing would be considered unacceptable if ANYONE else in the world were doing it.

Wait, just to be clear.

Do you mean that its unacceptable to colonize a foreign land with Europeans and create a state there?

Or do you mean that its unacceptable to re-establish sovereignty and self-government in your own homeland?

Because either way .... seems to be perfectly acceptable. Oh wait ... except Jews.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Corazón
With my family, friends et al I speak Filipino here. Filipino is our national language.
We also speak Tagalog which is some kind of "regional language" similar to Filipino

Fantastic, Corazón...

And here was I thinking "Filipino" was just the new name the government gave to "Tagalog" in order to make it a national language.

Learn something new everyday...

Originally posted by Corazón
I've studied Spanish and I love it (but I'm not very fluent in Spanish )
My English...well as you can see José is awful...

Forget about Spanish... it's too complicated like all latin languages... (hablo, hablas, habla, hablamos, hablais, hablan... compare this unintelligible mess with the simplicity of the english equivalent: talk, talks). Besides it'll only help you in Spain, Latin America and the American Southwest... With English you won't starve even in a little village in Botswana. : )

Your english is absolutely fine... no need to worry... and anyway there's a saying that goes like this:

Someone who speaks your native language poorly or with an accent is someone who speaks more languages than you do.

 

[Mindful]

Originally posted by Corazón
With my family, friends et al I speak Filipino here. Filipino is our national language.
We also speak Tagalog which is some kind of "regional language" similar to Filipino

Fantastic, Corazón...

And here was I thinking "Filipino" was just the new name the government gave to "Tagalog" in order to make it a national language.

Learn something new everyday...

Originally posted by Corazón
I've studied Spanish and I love it (but I'm not very fluent in Spanish )
My English...well as you can see José is awful...

Forget about Spanish... it's too complicated like all latin languages... (hablo, hablas, habla, hablamos, hablais, hablan... compare this unintelligible mess with the simplicity of the english equivalent: talk, talks). Besides it'll only help you in Spain, Latin America and the American Southwest... With English you won't starve even in a little village in Botswana. : )

Your english is absolutely fine... no need to worry... and anyway there's a saying that goes like this:

Someone who speaks your native language poorly or with an accent is someone who speaks more languages than you do.

Does it matter how many languages one speaks? They all say the same crap, in the end.

I speak German, but I try not to.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no false premise.

Why is it that the Treaty of Lausanne says that the territory was transferred to the new states and you say it was transferred to the allied powers.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

I quoted you the exact Article "verbatim." What article are you referring to?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The state of Palestine was established by international treaties in 1924.

No. It was not. Why continue with that nonsense?

A people do not need permission to declare independence.

Israel thanks you.

It wasn't? link?

No. It wasn't. You suffer from the affliction of selective editing and parsing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

There are now some 215 instances of your nonsense claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your Magical Kingdom of Pally'land and those nonsense claims have been false every time.

Why do you continue to make false claims?

I don't. You say that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Article 30 does not say what you think it says.

1. It does not create a new state.
2. It does not transfer any territory to any state, let alone a new one.

All Article 30 says is that Turkish subjects in the territories which were transferred (to Italy, for example, in Article 15) will cease to be Turkish citizens and become citizens of the new territorial sovereign (Italy, for example).

It doesn't say that.

But thanks for playing.

OMG. Again, the cognitive disconnect is astonishing. That is EXACTLY what it says.

There is nothing in Article 30 which creates any new states nor transfers territory to any new states. You are unbelievable. It's like arguing that Article 30 transferred territory to the State of Rivendell and the State of Lothlorien. And Oz.

Made even more ridiculous by your claim that Article 30 transferred territory to Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Rivendell, Lothlorien, and Oz even though none of those non-existent states are mentioned (you know, because they didn't exist). But territory could not POSSIBLY have transferred to Israel. Because ... shrug ... "Israel isn't mentioned".

You just get more and more ridiculous.

You think like a Zionist.