Who Are The Palestinians?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are fouling up the timeline. International politics does not happen instantly.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

(COMMENT)

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.

In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence. Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."

Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well. The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options. That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are fouling up the timeline. International politics does not happen instantly.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

(COMMENT)

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.

In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence. Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."

Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well. The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options. That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

Just imagine what would happen to the Palestinians if Israel ever granted that to the Palis without Israel to provide for them any longer?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are fouling up the timeline. International politics does not happen instantly.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

(COMMENT)

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.

In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence. Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."

Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well. The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options. That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.​

Do you mean like building up a military to attack Palestinian civilians and drive them out of their homeland?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are fouling up the timeline. International politics does not happen instantly.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

(COMMENT)

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.

In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence. Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."

Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well. The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options. That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.​

Do you mean like building up a military to attack Palestinian civilians and drive them out of their homeland?

The ones building up a military attack were the Arabs. Like when they attacked in 1947. Also when 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militas attacked Israel from all sides in 1948.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

The Jews were not colonizers
They did not have superior rights

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Invalid question.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Mandates are a set of instructions and legal instruments.

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).

The questions are:

• Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to?
• When did Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State?

Most Respectfully,
R

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​

I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.

It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.

"The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​

Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​

Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?

And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.

Emphasizing
the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.

Here we go again The lands legal sovereign owners were the LoN who put in place the Mandates to administer the lands for them. The Mandates were separated by borders clearly defined so that French and British mandatories knew what the limits of their areas were.

Using a 1933 American report is not valid for a 1923 non American land mass. Yes possess does mean different to owned as a thief can possess your car but they can never own it, it is still your car. Does America define its states and have sovereign power over them, or does California define itself and have sovereign power over the land.

Israel acquired land under International law in 1923 when the LoN stated that the remaining 22% of Palestine was for the National Home of the Jews. So seeing as it already had land held in trust for them they have no need to acquire more land outside of the borders delineated by the LoN in 1923


Maybe you should be telling the ummah that as they acquired territory by war, namely gaza and the west bank. Then later they took Lebanon, Kosovo, Darfur, Ethiopia, Philippines, Somalia, Biafra and a whole host of other lands not Islamic. But that rule did not become enforceable until 22 November 1967

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does not change the fact that Palestine, in 1949, was a term that was still being politically used by the Arabs, and attempting to assign some quality of a state or political subdivision; which it did not have.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

(MINOR CORRECTIONs)

----------------------------------------------------------- FIRST -----------------------------------------------------------​

You noted several times --- using this phrase: "(After the Mandate left Palestine.)"

The "Mandate," a legal instrument of the League of Nations (LoN) --- never went anywhere; it did not leave. The UK, in coordination with the LoN, departed the territory and terminated its role as the Mandatory. The Mandate for Palestine is still valid under:
Article 80 The UN Charter

1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

You have used this same argument in you previous thrusts --- Post #582.

----------------------------------------------------------- SECOND -----------------------------------------------------------​

The ‘Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem’ (CRFJ), is not an official source or a basis for an official interpretation. The work itself is reputable and worthy, but still an opinion; from Dr. Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Dean, College of Law at Hebron University, oPt. I have read many of his works. This work, which our friend "P F Tinmore" often cites from is a very scholarly effect. But let's be clear, Dr Qafisheh wrote this work for his own kind (fellow students of law) and is Arab Palestinian; framing his argument like any baraster, in a way that best projects his particular point of view. But, --- Dr Qafisheh makes clear --- right in the beginning (Para 2 - Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel) ---

Under the Turkish rule, according to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 19 January 1869, Palestine’s inhabitants were Ottoman citizens. At that time, legally speaking, there was nothing called Palestine, Palestinian nationality, or Palestinians, neither was there anything called Israel, Israeli nationality, or Israelis.​

(COMMENT)

Having given recognition to the Author and the Source, I must point out that the entire piece is political in nature and written to pacify the pro-Palestinian clients that support the Jihadist and Fedayeen view that "Palestine" --- the word, the location and the people of --- simply by using the word --- gives some credence that their is such a thing. As if using the word ghost or vampire makes the thing real. And it does not take long at all for Dr Qafisheh's little thesis to go astray.

Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries. In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.​

First: "Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries."
Very misleading!
Correction: Palestine, as a Mandate, became distinct from its neighboring Mandates territories.

Second: "In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon."
Very misleading!
Correction: In fact, this separation began between British Mandate for Palestine (which included Trans-Jordan) and the newly created French Mandates: Syria, and Lebanon. Britain seized control of Egypt politically in 1882, gradually eroding Egyptian allegiance from the Ottoman Empire until 1914 when Britain seized total control. Partially independent from the UK in 1922, and total independence in June 1953.

Third: "Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors."
Again --- Very Misleading!
Correction: The Territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied acquired demarcation through the Sykes-Picot Treaty and several other negotiated efforts between the Mandatory Powers.
The difference here is that the "Government of Palestine" was the Administration established by the Mandatory Power. Regionally, there were only two, the French and the British.

Fourth: "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation."
This is entirely Wrong!!!
---
Correction: "First, the Ottoman Empire and its control over the region ended in 1918 at the signing of the Armistice of Mudros."
NOTE: Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database) Event #1831 Armistice of Mudros -- Ottoman unconditional surrender
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons of Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
---
Correction: "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established."
This is entirely Wrong!!!
The each of the four countries (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) were individual Mandates.

• Lebanon became independent in 1943.
• Syria became independent in 1946.
• Palestine was divided:
  • Jordan (1946)
  • Israel (1948)
  • Palestine (1988)

Relative to the Middle East conflict and the disputes between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, this particular source need much work in order to be of any use to the layman.

Most Respectfully,
R

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

On March 18, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine reported that it had been unable to arrange a truce and recommended a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.

The following day, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Warren Austin announced that the United States believes that the partition of Palestine was no longer a viable option. On March 20, United States Secretary of State George Marshall confirmed the United States' view that the proposal for a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine is the only idea presently being considered that will allow the United Nations to address the difficult situation in Palestine.

The trusteeship proposal was supported by Loy W. Henderson, head of the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, who opposed US support for partition because he believed it would hurt US interests in Arab countries. The proposal was drafted by Clark Clifford, White House Counsel and Max Lowenstein.

"The United States has proposed to the Security Council a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine to provide a government to keep the peace. Such trusteeship was proposed only after we had exhausted every effort to find a way to carry out partition by peaceful means. Trusteeship is not proposed as a substitute for the partition plan but as an effort to fill the vacuum soon to be created by the termination of the mandate on May 15. The trusteeship does not prejudice the character of the final political settlement. It would establish the conditions of order which are essential to a peaceful solution."

American trusteeship proposal for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

It looks like another proposal that didn't happen.

Rocco et al.

Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories. The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.

This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.

"The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf

What the !!!!!! since when has South Africa been in Palestine. Stop going of topic and spamming the board if you don't want to be reported.


NOW KEEP ON TOPIC OR ELSE

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's see if I can pick these off --- one at a time.

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​

I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think so. Land ownership is not a criteria in either the Declarative Theory of Sovereignty or the Constitutive Theory of Soveriegnty. Neither requires "ownership" as a means of establishing "territorial domain."

It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.

"The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​

Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.

(COMMENT)

National borders DO NOT denote ownership. National borders denote the terminator of sovereignty, from one dominion to another.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​

Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?

(COMMENT)

First:
Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car. You may lease property yet not own the property. You may by under mandate to maintain a given entity, yet not own the entity. Yes, possession and ownership are two different things.

Second:
The idea of a defined territory - is unambiguous. It is an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state.

And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.

Emphasizing
the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S/RES/242, the emphasis of the Resolution is not specifically directed at a nation:

• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Israel?
• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Jordan?
• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Palestinians?

This resolution at first sounds very dramatic, yet in reality is very ambiguous. The "inadmissibility" clause is one of those issues. It does not mention that Jordan had taken the West Bank by force. So, by reading the Resolution, you do not know if the prohibition warning was directed at Jordan or Israel.

There are several other issues being ambiguous.

Most Respectfully,
R

Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.​

You may have a point but how many countries are on rented land? I think your analogy falls short of reality.

Then how about a squatter can posses your home but can never own it. This is possession of land and property that you do not have a valid legal claim to. That is what is happening in Mandated Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I don't believe I mentioned cessation of territory.

Rocco et al.

Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories. The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.

This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.

"The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf

(COMMENT)

To some degree, I agree with you here.

What are you specifically challenging?

v/r
R

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

Which they have, yet refuse to act on it and take that last step of free determination. This would mean having to agree peace terms and negotiate mutual borders, while losing the support of UNWRA and many nations charitable contributions. That is the stumbling block at the moment the loss of revenue to pay the terrorists wages and pensions.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are fouling up the timeline. International politics does not happen instantly.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

(COMMENT)

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.

In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence. Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."

Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well. The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options. That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.​

Do you mean like building up a military to attack Palestinian civilians and drive them out of their homeland?

What homeland was that then, remembering that in 1923 the LoN granted 22% of Palestine to the Jews as their homeland. The "Palestinians" had been granted the other 78% as their homeland, and there where clauses that allowed the Mandatory to forcibly relocate the arab muslims to trans Jordan

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law. The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.

You left out an important point.

What did they propose to partition?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law. The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights

You keep saying that like it is true.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.

You left out an important point.

What did they propose to partition?

The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law. The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights

You keep saying that like it is true.

Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.

You left out an important point.

What did they propose to partition?

The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.

You left out an important point.

What did they propose to partition?

The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923

Why did the Jews accept a part of Palestine in 1947 when they received the whole pie 25 years earlier?

You don't make any sense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections." It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC: "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem. It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it: "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​

Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?

When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law. The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights

You keep saying that like it is true.

Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?

Indignant​

at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights,

1. Calls upon all States to implement fully and faithfully the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and alien domination;

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

Can you post a UN resolution, or anything else, that says the same thing about Israel?