Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sderot was formed in 1951, after the Armistice Arrangements. It was never an incorporated city of the State of Palestine.

I have heard this Israeli talking point a gazillion times but nobody has ever posted any evidence that this is true.

(COMMENT)

View attachment 276781
​

• What kind of "proof" are you looking for?
• Why would you even question that?​

I must be missing something here.


........View attachment 276780
Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused due to a lifetime of Israeli bullshit.

Look at the line around Gaza, It is an armistice line that is specifically not a political or territorial boundary. So whose land is whose land?

Please provide proof.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sderot was formed in 1951, after the Armistice Arrangements. It was never an incorporated city of the State of Palestine.

I have heard this Israeli talking point a gazillion times but nobody has ever posted any evidence that this is true.

(COMMENT)

View attachment 276781
​

• What kind of "proof" are you looking for?
• Why would you even question that?​

I must be missing something here.


........View attachment 276780
Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused due to a lifetime of Israeli bullshit.

Look at the line around Gaza, It is an armistice line that is specifically not a political or territorial boundary. So whose land is whose land?

Please provide proof.

You should march right up to that Israeli border you insist doesn’t exist and make your case.

Please provide proof.

 

[Hollie]

Prior to the change in status of the Hamas guards in Gaza, (breathing to, how shall we say, “unable to fog a mirror”), there were obvious indications that the local ISIS affiliate was going to bring some Peaceful Inner Struggling (of the high explosive kind), to the Hamas apostates.








On video, Gaza-based jihadi group accuses Hamas of apostasy, praises ISIS

On video, Gaza-based jihadi group accuses Hamas of apostasy, praises ISIS

August 19, 2019 / JNS) The Gaza-based jihadi group Jaysh Al-Islam shared a video on Telegram that attacks the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas, accusing the groups of apostasy, according to a report by the Middle East Media Research Institute shared exclusively with JNS.

The 28-minute video accuses the groups of adopting Western attitudes and allying with “unbelievers” such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but praised the Islamic State for implementing Sharia law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sderot was formed in 1951, after the Armistice Arrangements. It was never an incorporated city of the State of Palestine.

I have heard this Israeli talking point a gazillion times but nobody has ever posted any evidence that this is true.

(COMMENT)

View attachment 276781
​

• What kind of "proof" are you looking for?
• Why would you even question that?​

I must be missing something here.


........View attachment 276780
Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused due to a lifetime of Israeli bullshit.

Look at the line around Gaza, It is an armistice line that is specifically not a political or territorial boundary. So whose land is whose land?

Please provide proof.

You should march right up to that Israeli border you insist doesn’t exist and make your case.

Please provide proof.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sderot was formed in 1951, after the Armistice Arrangements. It was never an incorporated city of the State of Palestine.

I have heard this Israeli talking point a gazillion times but nobody has ever posted any evidence that this is true.

(COMMENT)

View attachment 276781
​

• What kind of "proof" are you looking for?
• Why would you even question that?​

I must be missing something here.


........View attachment 276780
Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused due to a lifetime of Israeli bullshit.

Look at the line around Gaza, It is an armistice line that is specifically not a political or territorial boundary. So whose land is whose land?

Please provide proof.

You should march right up to that Israeli border you insist doesn’t exist and make your case.

Please provide proof.

Deflection.

 

[Shusha]

Look at the line around Gaza, It is an armistice line that is specifically not a political or territorial boundary. So whose land is whose land?

Please provide proof.

Oh please, this isn't hard. On one side of the line is sovereign Israel. On the other side of the line is territory abandoned by Israel. Since the territory was not ceded to another State, and since the government operating in that territory is not a State, and since there is no longer a Mandate State overseeing the territory, it can only be terra nullius.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I beg to differ.

You are confused due to a lifetime of Israeli bullshit.

Look at the line around Gaza, It is an armistice line that is specifically not a political or territorial boundary. So whose land is whose land?

Please provide proof.

(COMMENT)

While the Armistice Lines dissolved, it does not preclude the Israelis adjusting their demarcation line to follow all, or some or none of the former Armistice Line as an International Boundary.

It is important to note that the boundaries of nations have nothing to do with what you think it should (or should not) be; but, rather what is mutually agreed upon by the "states involved." There was no Arab Palestinian State to have a border with until 1988. By that time the borders were already formed.

.........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Hopeless Gaza Strip ripe for Islamic State, says UN head

"A scenario where extremist elements that are linked to Isis gain more ground is completely possible and realistic," Matthias Schmale, who leads the UN office for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), told reporters in his Gaza Strip office last week.



Wow. That’s some truly inspiring insight there. Maybe go out on a limb and suggest that Islamic psychopaths might be a problem.

 

[Rigby5]

Armistice lines only have value if the UN says so.
But Palestine predates the UN.
The Treaty of Sevres established Palestine and pledged Gt. Britain to ensure Palestine succeeded in being independent.
That treaty precludes any possibility of Israel existing, as there was to be a Jewish homeland INSIDE of an independent Moslem Palestine.

It is also clear that Israel has lost any viable right to exist by continually committing war crimes, like failing to honor the right of return to the Moslems who fled the 1949 war.
Collective retribution is also an illegal war crime.
The continued confiscations of land for new Jewish settlements is also a war crime.
Etc.

 

[Shusha]

Armistice lines only have value if the UN says so.
But Palestine predates the UN.
The Treaty of Sevres established Palestine and pledged Gt. Britain to ensure Palestine succeeded in being independent.
That treaty precludes any possibility of Israel existing, as there was to be a Jewish homeland INSIDE of an independent Moslem Palestine.

It is also clear that Israel has lost any viable right to exist by continually committing war crimes, like failing to honor the right of return to the Moslems who fled the 1949 war.
Collective retribution is also an illegal war crime.
The continued confiscations of land for new Jewish settlements is also a war crime.
Etc.

None of this is true. Oh where to start.....sigh.

The 1949 Armistice lines only exist because of a "pause-in-fighting" treaty between Israel and Jordan. They demarcate the extent of military control of territory by each of the two sides at a certain point in the armed conflict between them. The Armistice is the agreement that neither Israel nor Jordan will attempt military control on the other side of the line. When Israel and Jordan signed a Peace Treaty, it dissolved the Armistice lines by reason that there was no longer a war or conflict as Jordan abandoned all claims.

The Mandate for Palestine calls for the development of self-governing institutions for the Jewish people, clearly supporting the idea of self-determination for the Jewish people as sovereigns.

States either exist or they do not exist. There is no provision in international law for a State to "lose the right to exist".

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

May I offer an opposing view. I would point out that the Treaty of Sevres never went into force having been rejected by the new government of MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATURK (1881-1938). But had it gone into effect, the Treaty did not preclude any division or reapportionment.

SECTION XIII.
• GENERAL PROVISIONS •
ARTICLE 132.

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognize and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in an agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

The treaty did promise a new country for the Kurds, which never came to pass because the Treaty was never accepted. Hence, one of the reasons for the Treaty of Lausanne.

Armistice lines only have value if the UN says so.
But Palestine predates the UN.
The Treaty of Sevres established Palestine and pledged Gt. Britain to ensure Palestine succeeded in being independent.
That treaty precludes any possibility of Israel existing, as there was to be a Jewish homeland INSIDE of an independent Moslem Palestine.

(COMMENT)

No this is not correct. In fact:

SECTION XIII.
GENERAL PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE 136(3)

The Principal Allied Powers reserve the right to agree among themselves, and if necessary with the other Allied or neutral Powers concerned, as to the date on which the new system is to come into force.

Again, none of this is applicable, since it did not go into force. Although much of these same concepts are to be found in the Treaty of Lausanne.

It is also clear that Israel has lost any viable right to exist by continually committing war crimes, like failing to honor the right of return to the Moslems who fled the 1949 war.
Collective retribution is also an illegal war crime.
The continued confiscations of land for new Jewish settlements is also a war crime.
Etc.

(COMMENT)

Well, given the fact that the Arab Palestinians did, under the observation of the International Community, agree to the conditions:

◈ Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)

◈ Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control)

◈ Area C (full Israeli civil and security control)​

All the current settlements under complaint fall withing Area "C" which is under full Israeli civil and security controls - as agreed upon by the Arab Palestinians. It is understood that these "Permanent Status Negotiations" shall cover remaining issues, including Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

IF! Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles. or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

The Arab Palestinians have not once (I say again NOT Once) invoked the Dispute Resolution Protocols. Not once.

In January 1948, the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. This makes the return of any Arab Palestinians an unacceptable internal security risk. There is no international requirement for Israel to accept an internal security risk that threatened the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any Israel.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Rigby5]

Armistice lines only have value if the UN says so.
But Palestine predates the UN.
The Treaty of Sevres established Palestine and pledged Gt. Britain to ensure Palestine succeeded in being independent.
That treaty precludes any possibility of Israel existing, as there was to be a Jewish homeland INSIDE of an independent Moslem Palestine.

It is also clear that Israel has lost any viable right to exist by continually committing war crimes, like failing to honor the right of return to the Moslems who fled the 1949 war.
Collective retribution is also an illegal war crime.
The continued confiscations of land for new Jewish settlements is also a war crime.
Etc.

None of this is true. Oh where to start.....sigh.

The 1949 Armistice lines only exist because of a "pause-in-fighting" treaty between Israel and Jordan. They demarcate the extent of military control of territory by each of the two sides at a certain point in the armed conflict between them. The Armistice is the agreement that neither Israel nor Jordan will attempt military control on the other side of the line. When Israel and Jordan signed a Peace Treaty, it dissolved the Armistice lines by reason that there was no longer a war or conflict as Jordan abandoned all claims.

The Mandate for Palestine calls for the development of self-governing institutions for the Jewish people, clearly supporting the idea of self-determination for the Jewish people as sovereigns.

States either exist or they do not exist. There is no provision in international law for a State to "lose the right to exist".

Totally wrong.
The British Mandate for Palestine was for Jews to have a homeland inside of an Arab Moslem Palestine, but play no role in government at all.
Read the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, that explains the confusion in great detail.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the up building of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

This should be obvious without even being told, because there obviously is no legal way the British could have given Palestine to the immigrant European Jews even if they wanted to. The vast majority has always been native Arab Muslims. The UN totally screwed up by giving 55% of Palestine to the 30% Jewish immigrant population.
It was illegal and immoral to start with, and made even worse by Jews not allowing the refugees who fled the violence, to return to their own homes in 1949.

 

[Shusha]

This should be obvious without even being told, because there obviously is no legal way the British could have given Palestine to the immigrant European Jews even if they wanted to. The vast majority has always been native Arab Muslims. The UN totally screwed up by giving 55% of Palestine to the 30% Jewish immigrant population.
It was illegal and immoral to start with, and made even worse by Jews not allowing the refugees who fled the violence, to return to their own homes in 1949.

Of course the British did not "give" territory to the Jewish people. The Jewish people -- by way of rights to self-determination in reconstituting their nation -- developed self-governing institutions and declared independence. Nothing "illegal" about it. Its the same way all new States come into being post WWII.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

Remember: "The Mandate for Palestine was assigned to the United Kingdom by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo" (1920). It was imposed on themselves (the community of the Allied Powers) and not some extraordinary Arab or Jewish influence.

SO! One thing in these discussions, no matter how deep in the grass we get, the principal objective in 1922 was that:

~→ the Allied Powers agreed → as a body unto themselves → to entrust to British (selected by the said Powers) the administration of the territory of Palestine, (within such boundaries as may be fixed by them, yet not yet fully established). And the Allied Powers that agreed that the responsibility for putting into effect the Balfour Declaration (1917) that was adopted by the said Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home (JNH).​

And the Mandate (1922) was a creation of the Allied Powers and could be modified by the Allied Powers at their discretion. The Mandate was not a suicide pact that in total disregard for the events of time, must be strictly adhered to (as some sort of politically compliance-oriented directive), or to be a record of intent subject to the interpretation by the Arab Palestinians. The Mandate was, in effect, guidance to be interpreted by the British Government and for the British Government with the advice and consent of the Allied Powers and Council of the League of Nations.

Totally wrong.
The British Mandate for Palestine was for Jews to have a homeland inside of an Arab Moslem Palestine, but play no role in government at all.
Read the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, that explains the confusion in great detail.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp
(COMMENT)

The "British Policy in Palestine," as expressed by Sir Winston Churchill (as Secretary of State for the Colonies) in June 1922 (AKA: The British White Paper of 1922) was an attempt at clarification and yet, kneejerk response to the Arab Jaffa Riots (1921). The British Policy on Palestine was subject to the interpretation of the day.

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home (JNH) in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.

Many British Policy Statements and emphasis was changed or modified over time (1922-1948), but this aspect was never altered.

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favoring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November 1917.

(COMMENT)

No matter the reasoning, in the end, "exaggerated interpretations applied to the meaning of the Balfour Declaration" were unhelpful. But again, what the Allied Powers did or allowed was an authority issued unto themselves. (A "do what you will" policy.)

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English."

(COMMENT)

This is a quote from the "Political History of Palestine under British Administration" (1947), often given too much emphasis when applied to the context of today's politics → some 70 years later.

... In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the up building of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

(COMMENT)

This is one of those Eureka Moments; an epiphany of sorts: "Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect."

One can only ask, how did international politics turn this upside-down. But while that Arab Palestinians only ranks 119 out of 189 ---- Israel Ranks 22. So, the goal (assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development) was not an entire bust... SO, while the policy followed by the Arab Palestinians for 70 years (solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition) did not work out well for them, the Israeli policies have taken the Jewish Community to the very top of the Region in terms of the goal: national and human development.

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

(COMMENT)

You have the advantage on me. I have absolutely no insight into what the Palestine Zionist Executive wants, needs or strives to achieve.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine is concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded and that that Declaration, reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

(COMMENT)

Whatever you want the meaning of the actions to mean in 1917 or 1922, the actual interpretation, the implementation, the applications of changes, etc have brought us forward to today. There is no "instant replay" and you cannot simply throw a flag on the play and penalize the parties to a setback of 70 years.

This should be obvious without even being told, because there obviously is no legal way the British could have given Palestine to the immigrant European Jews even if they wanted to. The vast majority has always been native Arab Muslims. The UN totally screwed up by giving 55% of Palestine to the 30% Jewish immigrant population.
It was illegal and immoral to start with, and made even worse by Jews not allowing the refugees who fled the violence, to return to their own homes in 1949.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are making a determination on the "legality" of the actions of the "Allied Powers" in 1922 right through to the 1948 withdrawal of the British and the announcement of independence through sheer "self-determination" and against all odds. You cannot mix your modified historical facts on which the Allied Powers made certain decisions → of the Actions of the United Nations, and the role that "self-determination" played in the developments we contend with today.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

Remember: "The Mandate for Palestine was assigned to the United Kingdom by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo" (1920). It was imposed on themselves (the community of the Allied Powers) and not some extraordinary Arab or Jewish influence.

SO! One thing in these discussions, no matter how deep in the grass we get, the principal objective in 1922 was that:

~→ the Allied Powers agreed → as a body unto themselves → to entrust to British (selected by the said Powers) the administration of the territory of Palestine, (within such boundaries as may be fixed by them, yet not yet fully established). And the Allied Powers that agreed that the responsibility for putting into effect the Balfour Declaration (1917) that was adopted by the said Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home (JNH).​

And the Mandate (1922) was a creation of the Allied Powers and could be modified by the Allied Powers at their discretion. The Mandate was not a suicide pact that in total disregard for the events of time, must be strictly adhered to (as some sort of politically compliance-oriented directive), or to be a record of intent subject to the interpretation by the Arab Palestinians. The Mandate was, in effect, guidance to be interpreted by the British Government and for the British Government with the advice and consent of the Allied Powers and Council of the League of Nations.

Totally wrong.
The British Mandate for Palestine was for Jews to have a homeland inside of an Arab Moslem Palestine, but play no role in government at all.
Read the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, that explains the confusion in great detail.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

(COMMENT)

The "British Policy in Palestine," as expressed by Sir Winston Churchill (as Secretary of State for the Colonies) in June 1922 (AKA: The British White Paper of 1922) was an attempt at clarification and yet, kneejerk response to the Arab Jaffa Riots (1921). The British Policy on Palestine was subject to the interpretation of the day.

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home (JNH) in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.

Many British Policy Statements and emphasis was changed or modified over time (1922-1948), but this aspect was never altered.

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favoring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November 1917.

(COMMENT)

No matter the reasoning, in the end, "exaggerated interpretations applied to the meaning of the Balfour Declaration" were unhelpful. But again, what the Allied Powers did or allowed was an authority issued unto themselves. (A "do what you will" policy.)

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English."

(COMMENT)

This is a quote from the "Political History of Palestine under British Administration" (1947), often given too much emphasis when applied to the context of today's politics → some 70 years later.

... In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the up building of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

(COMMENT)

This is one of those Eureka Moments; an epiphany of sorts: "Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect."

One can only ask, how did international politics turn this upside-down. But while that Arab Palestinians only ranks 119 out of 189 ---- Israel Ranks 22. So, the goal (assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development) was not an entire bust... SO, while the policy followed by the Arab Palestinians for 70 years (solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition) did not work out well for them, the Israeli policies have taken the Jewish Community to the very top of the Region in terms of the goal: national and human development.

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

(COMMENT)

You have the advantage on me. I have absolutely no insight into what the Palestine Zionist Executive wants, needs or strives to achieve.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine is concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded and that that Declaration, reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

(COMMENT)

Whatever you want the meaning of the actions to mean in 1917 or 1922, the actual interpretation, the implementation, the applications of changes, etc have brought us forward to today. There is no "instant replay" and you cannot simply throw a flag on the play and penalize the parties to a setback of 70 years.

This should be obvious without even being told, because there obviously is no legal way the British could have given Palestine to the immigrant European Jews even if they wanted to. The vast majority has always been native Arab Muslims. The UN totally screwed up by giving 55% of Palestine to the 30% Jewish immigrant population.
It was illegal and immoral to start with, and made even worse by Jews not allowing the refugees who fled the violence, to return to their own homes in 1949.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are making a determination on the "legality" of the actions of the "Allied Powers" in 1922 right through to the 1948 withdrawal of the British and the announcement of independence through sheer "self-determination" and against all odds. You cannot mix your modified historical facts on which the Allied Powers made certain decisions → of the Actions of the United Nations, and the role that "self-determination" played in the developments we contend with today.

........View attachment 276907
Most Respectfully,
R

One term was used in the Balfour Declaration, many times since, and is true today, and that is "in Palestine."

The Palestinians were/are expected to leave where they have lived for hundreds even thousands of years and hand the keys over to foreign settlers.

The Palestinians rejected that back then and reject it now. And they have every right to do so.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The unincorporated name of the territory was "Palestine" with no specific boundaries.

One term was used in the Balfour Declaration, many times since, and is true today, and that is "in Palestine."

The Palestinians were/are expected to leave where they have lived for hundreds even thousands of years and hand the keys over to foreign settlers.

The Palestinians rejected that back then and reject it now. And they have every right to do so.

(COMMENT)

...............................................PART I.

........................................PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

Prior to The Great War (AKA: WWI) the region now under the control and that of sovereignty were parts of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Acre, Balqa, all three within the Vilayet of Beirut; plus - the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem.

After the surrender and the Armistice of Mudros (1918), the same territory was designated under the control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). After the Conference of San Remo (June 1920) the territory transferred to the Civil Administration as agreed to by the Allied Powers.

In June 1920, the same territory became known as "Palestine" which was formalized by the Order in Council.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The unincorporated name of the territory was "Palestine" with no specific boundaries.

One term was used in the Balfour Declaration, many times since, and is true today, and that is "in Palestine."

The Palestinians were/are expected to leave where they have lived for hundreds even thousands of years and hand the keys over to foreign settlers.

The Palestinians rejected that back then and reject it now. And they have every right to do so.

(COMMENT)

...............................................PART I.

........................................PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

Prior to The Great War (AKA: WWI) the region now under the control and that of sovereignty were parts of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Acre, Balqa, all three within the Vilayet of Beirut; plus - the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem.

After the surrender and the Armistice of Mudros (1918), the same territory was designated under the control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). After the Conference of San Remo (June 1920) the territory transferred to the Civil Administration as agreed to by the Allied Powers.

In June 1920, the same territory became known as "Palestine" which was formalized by the Order in Council.

........View attachment 276930
Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so?

What does that have to do with my post?

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians rejected that back then and reject it now. And they have every right to do so.

Interesting concept.

From where does the legal or moral right to reject another people’s self-determination arise?

Be specific.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians rejected that back then and reject it now. And they have every right to do so.

Interesting concept.

From where does the legal or moral right to reject another people’s self-determination arise?

Be specific.

The right to self determination applies to the people of the place not to people from someplace else.

 

[Hollie]

The Palestinians rejected that back then and reject it now. And they have every right to do so.

Interesting concept.

From where does the legal or moral right to reject another people’s self-determination arise?

Be specific.

The right to self determination applies to the people of the place not to people from someplace else.

Link?