Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

Was it by treaty or by illegal military conquest?

Illegal military conquest is defined by a State actor using military action to invade, occupy or take control of territory not under its sovereignty. The only such States were Jordan and Egypt. (Others tried, but did not succeed in taking control of territory outside their own sovereignty).

Self-determination, by definition, is not military conquest.

http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf

 

[P F Tinmore]

Alright, so now we have a territory which has been abandoned by the previous sovereign. But we don't quite have terra nullius. Why? Because a new concept was developing around that time in international law and that was the concept of self-determination of peoples.

This new concept, expressed in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, said that territory could be held in trust by an "advanced nation" until such time as a peoples existence as independent nations can be recognized and they are able to stand alone.

Rather than terra nullius, then, the Mandate for Palestine created a trusteeship with Britain forming a temporary government, with full rights, but no title to the territory. This was the legal status of the territory of Israel/Palestine from 1923 to 1948.

Britain did eventually abandon the trusteeship, creating the condition of terra nullius.

Still with me?

No. It was never terra nullius.

 

[Hollie]

Was it by treaty or by illegal military conquest?

Illegal military conquest is defined by a State actor using military action to invade, occupy or take control of territory not under its sovereignty. The only such States were Jordan and Egypt. (Others tried, but did not succeed in taking control of territory outside their own sovereignty).

Self-determination, by definition, is not military conquest.

http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf

That's odd. Gaza is Jew free and the West Bank is nearly the same, yet, Arabs-Moslems live, work and hold citizenship in Israel.

Is Pappe trying to sell more books?

 

[rylah]

Was it by treaty or by illegal military conquest?

Illegal military conquest is defined by a State actor using military action to invade, occupy or take control of territory not under its sovereignty. The only such States were Jordan and Egypt. (Others tried, but did not succeed in taking control of territory outside their own sovereignty).

Self-determination, by definition, is not military conquest.

http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf

Indeed 80% of the territory formerly under Palestine Mandate is ruled by Arab governments that first expelled and then set laws banning the Jews.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Palestinians, who were so used to being able to push their agenda on cable news networks and major newspaper op-eds at will, now are seeing that the world is putting their issues in a more proper perspective. Compared to the real problems of people living in the region, Palestinians don't have it that bad, and giving them so much oxygen has suffocated far more important causes for a long time.

But the anti-Israel, pro-terror activists are frustrated at this change in focus. They are like spoiled children who are suddenly forced to share their toys with others. They keep trying to come up with more and more absurd excuses to own the agenda (like accusing Israel of "veganwashing.")

This mentality is shared between anti-Israel activists and Palestinian terrorists. They aren't the center of attention anymore and they must stage a temper tantrum to regain the spotlight. A parent can't ignore their child screaming in the middle of the market, can they?

Palestinians are proud that Gaza rockets are powerful enough to force an Israeli prime minister to react, just as toddlers are happy to get attention from their parents by screaming that they want a chocolate bar.

The difference is that up until now, the world has been patiently hoping that the Palestinian toddlers will grow up. In the years since Oslo, real toddlers have indeed grown up, started companies and had children of their own - but Palestinians and their fans have stayed exactly where they were.

(full article online)

The temper tantrum rockets ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Hollie]

Fortunately, there is a growing awareness and reaction to Fatah using Facebook as a means of incitement and to promote islamic terrorism by glorifying the acts of islamic terrorists.



Jpost: "PMW: Facebook promoting Palestinian terrorism" - PMW Bulletins

PMW: Facebook promoting Palestinian terrorism

• NGO report documents dozens of incidents in which Fatah glorified murderers of Israelis

An Jerusalem-based watchdog group has accused Facebook of being an accomplice to terrorism for its continued refusal to shut down the official Fatah Facebook page.

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) on Tuesday released a report documenting dozens of incidents in which Fatah used its page to promote violence and glorify murderers of Israelis.

The 42-page report is the second of its kind. The previous report, published in February 2019, tracked Fatah's Facebook activity the year before. Both reports were sent to Facebook.

According to PMW's CEO Itamar Marcus, the first report was not only reviewed by the social networking site, but Marcus had a 45-minute conversation with the director of Facebook's global counterterrorism policy team, Brian Fishman, about its findings.

"During our conversation, I emphasized that every time Fatah posts a new terror message on Facebook encouraging violence or presenting murderers as role models, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are given more motivation to kill Israelis," Marcus told The Jerusalem Post. "Facebook still chooses to do nothing to stop it.

"Their willingness to ignore the role they are playing in Fatah's terror promotion is incomprehensible," he said. "Whereas in 2018 Facebook was an unwitting accomplice in Fatah's terror promotion, Facebook is Fatah's partner by choice in 2019."

 

[Shusha]

Alright, so now we have a territory which has been abandoned by the previous sovereign. But we don't quite have terra nullius. Why? Because a new concept was developing around that time in international law and that was the concept of self-determination of peoples.

This new concept, expressed in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, said that territory could be held in trust by an "advanced nation" until such time as a peoples existence as independent nations can be recognized and they are able to stand alone.

Rather than terra nullius, then, the Mandate for Palestine created a trusteeship with Britain forming a temporary government, with full rights, but no title to the territory. This was the legal status of the territory of Israel/Palestine from 1923 to 1948.

Britain did eventually abandon the trusteeship, creating the condition of terra nullius.

Still with me?

No. It was never terra nullius.

Well, it's mostly unimportant, because it was only for a brief moment between the British abandonment of the Mandate and the Declaration of Independence by Israel.

 

[Shusha]

That is true. However, the Treaty of Lausanne was a part of a process. The plan was to create new states in that region. Each new state was named and post war treaties defined their international borders. The people who normally lived in each territory would become citizens/nationals of their respective territories. That plan could not be implemented as long as those territories fell under Turkish sovereignty.
The Treaty of Lausanne merely released those territories so that the plan could be implemented. All of those new states came into existence with the Treaty of Lausanne.

You had me right up until the last sentence. You can not put an empty pot on the table and call it soup. States are not figments of people's imaginations. They exist, or do not exist, in reality. They exist in reality because they have governments, and manage people and control territory and declare themselves such. They exist in reality because they negotiate and trade and treat with other nations.

 

[Shusha]

I have never said that Jews have no rights. Rights like sovereignty and self determination are "national" rights. These are territorial rights.

What is that supposed to mean? That the Jewish people have rights to sovereignty and self-determination, but no right to a territory to put it on?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Here is a letter to Life magazine in 1951:



Richardson became a professor of international affairsand wrote a few papers on the Palestine refugee situation in the early 1950s. He was no Zionist and he was truly concerned over the plight of refugees of Palestine

To Richardson, as to most of the people at the time who wanted to find solution to the refugee problem, it was obvious that the Arab countries were at fault for no solution and that it was their responsibility to help resettle the Arabs of Palestine in their states. In fact, it would be beneficial to them to integrate this population.
This is how you can tell the difference between people who are pro-Palestinian and those who are just anti-Israel. People who really care about Palestinians would insist that Arab states make them into citizens, especially those that have been "guests" for generations. People who truly care about Palestinians want to end their statelessness and their suffering in camps.

People who are anti-Israel insist on "return,' and are angry when Palestinian Arabs themselves say they want to become citizens in Lebanon, Gulf states or the West. They are the ones who insist on supporting UNRWA to keep the issue alive - and Palestinians in limbo - until a fantasy time when Israel is destroyed. They want to see millions more refugees.

Sometimes you need to look at the past to understand the present.


It used to be obvious how the Palestinian refugee problem must be solved ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[toomuchtime_]

That is true. However, the Treaty of Lausanne was a part of a process. The plan was to create new states in that region. Each new state was named and post war treaties defined their international borders. The people who normally lived in each territory would become citizens/nationals of their respective territories. That plan could not be implemented as long as those territories fell under Turkish sovereignty.
The Treaty of Lausanne merely released those territories so that the plan could be implemented. All of those new states came into existence with the Treaty of Lausanne.

You had me right up until the last sentence. You can not put an empty pot on the table and call it soup. States are not figments of people's imaginations. They exist, or do not exist, in reality. They exist in reality because they have governments, and manage people and control territory and declare themselves such. They exist in reality because they negotiate and trade and treat with other nations.

And can defend themselves or have strong allies; otherwise, if they have anything of value, their existence is likely to be brief.

 

[RoccoR]

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

OH, you are just so full of it.

terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection
with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over a territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 39. Cf . Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 at 44 and 63. In the words of 1 Oppenheim 687 , ‘The only territory which can be the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for individuals may live on as territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising sovereignty over such territory’. See also Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 1105 ; Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 ; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953 I.C.J. Rep. 47 ; Rann of Kutch Case ( 1968 ) 17 R.I.A.A. 1 ; Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12 . And see Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.), 265–268. The process whereby territory already subject to the sovereignty of another State may be acquired—and by very much the same method as for occupation —is referred to as prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ).
SOURCE: Page 596 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law •

No. It was never terra nullius.

(COMMENT)

In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties with the West Bank. Originally, the Israelis captured the territory in 1967 from the Jordanians. The abandonment by the Jordanians left the territory in the hands of the Israelis.

Occupation is a method of acquiring territory which belongs to no one (terra nullius) and which may be acquired by a state in certain situations. The occupation must be by a state and not by private individuals, it must be effective and it must be intended as a claim of sovereignty over the area.
SOURCE: Page 503 • INTERNATIONAL LAW 6th Edition, MALCOLM N. SHAW QC and Sir Robert Jennings Professor of International Law • University of Leicester

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

Alright, so now we have a territory which has been abandoned by the previous sovereign. But we don't quite have terra nullius. Why? Because a new concept was developing around that time in international law and that was the concept of self-determination of peoples.

This new concept, expressed in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, said that territory could be held in trust by an "advanced nation" until such time as a peoples existence as independent nations can be recognized and they are able to stand alone.

Rather than terra nullius, then, the Mandate for Palestine created a trusteeship with Britain forming a temporary government, with full rights, but no title to the territory. This was the legal status of the territory of Israel/Palestine from 1923 to 1948.

Britain did eventually abandon the trusteeship, creating the condition of terra nullius.

Still with me?

No. It was never terra nullius.

Well, it's mostly unimportant, because it was only for a brief moment between the British abandonment of the Mandate and the Declaration of Independence by Israel.

Britain did not abandon Palestine. They handed it over to the UNPC.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is true. However, the Treaty of Lausanne was a part of a process. The plan was to create new states in that region. Each new state was named and post war treaties defined their international borders. The people who normally lived in each territory would become citizens/nationals of their respective territories. That plan could not be implemented as long as those territories fell under Turkish sovereignty.
The Treaty of Lausanne merely released those territories so that the plan could be implemented. All of those new states came into existence with the Treaty of Lausanne.

You had me right up until the last sentence. You can not put an empty pot on the table and call it soup. States are not figments of people's imaginations. They exist, or do not exist, in reality. They exist in reality because they have governments, and manage people and control territory and declare themselves such. They exist in reality because they negotiate and trade and treat with other nations.

They exist in reality because they have governments,

Indeed, it was the job of the Mandate to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. Britain was there for thirty years and failed to establish a government. They could have been in and out in ten.

BTW, the US and Palestine had a trade agreement in 1932.

 

[Hollie]

Alright, so now we have a territory which has been abandoned by the previous sovereign. But we don't quite have terra nullius. Why? Because a new concept was developing around that time in international law and that was the concept of self-determination of peoples.

This new concept, expressed in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, said that territory could be held in trust by an "advanced nation" until such time as a peoples existence as independent nations can be recognized and they are able to stand alone.

Rather than terra nullius, then, the Mandate for Palestine created a trusteeship with Britain forming a temporary government, with full rights, but no title to the territory. This was the legal status of the territory of Israel/Palestine from 1923 to 1948.

Britain did eventually abandon the trusteeship, creating the condition of terra nullius.

Still with me?

No. It was never terra nullius.

Well, it's mostly unimportant, because it was only for a brief moment between the British abandonment of the Mandate and the Declaration of Independence by Israel.

Britain did not abandon Palestine. They handed it over to the UNPC.

Indeed, and the rest, as they say is history. Israel declared independence, established sovereignty in the face of Arab-Moslem attacks and decades later has thrived. A small oasis of hope and success in a vast Islamic wilderness of despair and failure.

 

[Hollie]

That is true. However, the Treaty of Lausanne was a part of a process. The plan was to create new states in that region. Each new state was named and post war treaties defined their international borders. The people who normally lived in each territory would become citizens/nationals of their respective territories. That plan could not be implemented as long as those territories fell under Turkish sovereignty.
The Treaty of Lausanne merely released those territories so that the plan could be implemented. All of those new states came into existence with the Treaty of Lausanne.

You had me right up until the last sentence. You can not put an empty pot on the table and call it soup. States are not figments of people's imaginations. They exist, or do not exist, in reality. They exist in reality because they have governments, and manage people and control territory and declare themselves such. They exist in reality because they negotiate and trade and treat with other nations.

They exist in reality because they have governments,

Indeed, it was the job of the Mandate to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. Britain was there for thirty years and failed to establish a government. They could have been in and out in ten.

BTW, the US and Palestine had a trade agreement in 1932.

Indeed, rendering assistance is what happened. Arab-Moslem intransigence along with an inability and unwillingness to establish a workable government and stable society is the fault of Arabs-Moslems.

Indeed, decades since the end of the mandate and the angry, intransigent Arab-Moslem tribes are still at each other’s throats.

 

[Shusha]

Britain was there for thirty years and failed to establish a government.

1. A government was, in point of fact, established there. It became a State. Israel.
2. It was not the function of the British government to establish a government (self-determination, remember?). It was the function of the British government to provide support and tutelage.

 

[Shusha]

Alright, so now we have a territory which has been abandoned by the previous sovereign. But we don't quite have terra nullius. Why? Because a new concept was developing around that time in international law and that was the concept of self-determination of peoples.

This new concept, expressed in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, said that territory could be held in trust by an "advanced nation" until such time as a peoples existence as independent nations can be recognized and they are able to stand alone.

Rather than terra nullius, then, the Mandate for Palestine created a trusteeship with Britain forming a temporary government, with full rights, but no title to the territory. This was the legal status of the territory of Israel/Palestine from 1923 to 1948.

Britain did eventually abandon the trusteeship, creating the condition of terra nullius.

Still with me?

No. It was never terra nullius.

Well, it's mostly unimportant, because it was only for a brief moment between the British abandonment of the Mandate and the Declaration of Independence by Israel.

Britain did not abandon Palestine. They handed it over to the UNPC.

Meh. Interesting concept. Can a non-State legally hold a territory in trusteeship for a (possible) eventual self-governing state? i'd argue, no. But you can try to convince me.

You'd have to give up your, but there was already a State of Palestine routine though. You can't have it both ways.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well, I guess it is all in how you look at it.

His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine themselves merely because Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them.
... →
The latest British proposals were rejected both by the Arab Delegations (which include, at the second part of the London conference, a Delegation representing the Palestine Arab Higher Executive), and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Thereupon the Mandatory decided to refer the problem to the United Nations.
.... →
We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable.
SOURCE: • A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 •

Britain did not abandon Palestine. They handed it over to the UNPC.

(COMMENT)

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) made recommendations in late 1947. Of the recommendation approved by the General Assembly, it included the establishment of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).

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

 

[RoccoR]

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

BTW, the US and Palestine had a trade agreement in 1932.

(COMMENT)

In 1932, "Palestine" was the short title for the British Government of Palestine (Order in Council).

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