Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

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?

A mere 55 years ahead of the date provided making it invalid as you cant use 1978 recommendations retrospectively for something from 1923.

But you do realise that the "Palestinian people" also includes the Jews who had their inalienable national rights denied by the arab muslims.


Now try and keep up and post a link from 1923 not half a century after this date.

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 upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

Churchill White Paper 1922 Jewish Virtual Library

All dealt with by partitioning Palestine into arab and Jewish sectors. This meant that 78% became arab Palestine and 22% became Jewish Palestine. And did you read your own cut and paste that clearly states


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 upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."



But as you have been shown a white paper has no legal standing and it was confined to the archives as just another failed first day motion.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.

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.

(QUESTION)

Where/when does it say that the (former WWI and WWII enemy population of) Arab Palestinian (indigenous, native, or citizen) has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 (the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected), wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian (former WWI and WWII enemy population) citizenry?

Most Respectfully,
R

to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected),​

What successor was selected and who selected it?

The UNPC and the UN respectively, as the UN absorbed the LoN and took on the role of enforcing the Mandate for Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an evolutionary process. The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.

"The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"

• Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
• Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
• Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

The question (Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?) is being approached from the wrong angle.

The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population? And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"

Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) (International Bill of Human Rights) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda ("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.").

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?

(REFERENCE GROUPS)

Decolonization and Self-Determination

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960​

General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)

Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 49/148 23 December 1994​

General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization
General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007

United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 66/142 19 December 2011​

(COMMENT)

Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People (or as you say: "native inhabitance"), or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

"Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​

The ambiguity here is found in the question: When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people. And that is a matter of local legislation. Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for all the links that support my position.

So when does a recent migrant with full citizenship become a 2nd or 3rd class citizen and lose their human, civil and religious rights ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.

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.

(QUESTION)

Where/when does it say that the (former WWI and WWII enemy population of) Arab Palestinian (indigenous, native, or citizen) has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 (the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected), wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian (former WWI and WWII enemy population) citizenry?

Most Respectfully,
R

to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected),​

What successor was selected and who selected it?

The UNPC and the UN respectively, as the UN absorbed the LoN and took on the role of enforcing the Mandate for Palestine.

What was the UNPC Charter?

 

[Phoenall]

So, should we believe Roudy's opinion or wikipedia?

The Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn, Hebrew: פָלַסְטִינִים), also referred to as the Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Despite various wars and exoduses (such as that in 1948), roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel.[25] In this combined area, as of 2004, Palestinians constituted 49% of all inhabitants,[26]encompassing the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.6 million), the majority of the population of the West Bank (approximately 2.3 million versus close to 500,000 JewishIsraeli citizens which includes about 200,000 in East Jerusalem), and 16.5% of the population of Israel proper as Arab citizens of Israel.[27] Many are Palestinian refugees orinternally displaced Palestinians, including more than a million in the Gaza Strip,[28] three-quarters of a million in the West Bank,[29] and about a quarter of a million in Israel proper. Of the Palestinian population who live abroad, known as the Palestinian diaspora, more than half are stateless lacking citizenship in any country.[30] 3.24 million of the diaspora population live in neighboring Jordan[31] where they make up approximately half the population, 1.5 million live between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter of a million in Saudi Arabia, with Chile's half a million representing the largest concentration outside the Arab world.

A genetic study has suggested that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, could be descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.
Palestinians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ok if you believe fairy stories, but the evidence shows that the majority of "Palestinians" are recent illegal immigrants.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an evolutionary process. The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.

"The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"

• Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
• Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
• Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

The question (Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?) is being approached from the wrong angle.

The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population? And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"

Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) (International Bill of Human Rights) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda ("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.").

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?

(REFERENCE GROUPS)

Decolonization and Self-Determination

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960​

General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)

Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 49/148 23 December 1994​

General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization
General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007

United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 66/142 19 December 2011​

(COMMENT)

Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People (or as you say: "native inhabitance"), or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

"Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​

The ambiguity here is found in the question: When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people. And that is a matter of local legislation. Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for all the links that support my position.

So when does a recent migrant with full citizenship become a 2nd or 3rd class citizen and lose their human, civil and religious rights ?

I don't know. I have never posted such a proposition.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH WOW!!!

The General Assembly established and selected the successor. The General Assembly stipulated that: "The administration of Palestine shall, as the Mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission."

to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected),

What successor was selected and who selected it?

(COMMENT)

In 1947, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (II) --- Future of Palestine. At its hundred and twenty-eighth plenary meeting on 29 November 1947 the General Assembly, in accordance with the terms of the above resolution [181 A], elected the following members of the United Nations Commission on Palestine:

• Bolivia,
• Czechoslovakia,
• Denmark,
• Panama and
• Philippines.

B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE​

1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

In the discharge of this administrative responsibility the Commission shall have authority to issue necessary regulations and take other measures as required.

The mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.

The Mandatory, in conjunction and collaboration with the UN General Assembly, made a international public announcement via the UN Press and Publications Bureau --- UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT --- PAL/138 27 February 1948, which in part stated as follows:

The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.

The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:

• 
  "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
  
  "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
  
  "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues."After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
  • 
    
    "His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The principle responsibilities of the UNPC were spelled-out in A/RES/181(II) Part I.

The UNPC and the UN respectively, as the UN absorbed the LoN and took on the role of enforcing the Mandate for Palestine.

What was the UNPC Charter?

(COMMENT)

Due to the outbreak of hostilities and acts of aggression on the part of the surrounding Arab Powers attempting to defy the General Assembly, the UNPC Adjourns sine die (PAL/169) --- and --- was replaced by the United Nations Mediator in Palestine.

"The General Assembly,

"Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

I believe wikipedia unless you can prove otherwise, Go on then, post your evidence with a non partisan link

 

[Roudy]

The points I raised had a link, yours, none other than one to the zionist memri tv

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews. According to the MEMRI web site: "MEMRI emphasizes the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel."

According to its website, founded in February 1998 by former/current Israeli intelligence officers
Middle East Media Research Institute - SourceWatch

Memri wasn't the source of the links, dumbass.

Memri simply records what you savages say and plays it back. There is nothing to dispute.

 

[Roudy]

I believe wikipedia unless you can prove otherwise, Go on then, post your evidence with a non partisan link

Heh heh heh. I'll believe what the UN said about it:


A 364 of 3 September 1947


163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.


166. The desire of the Arab people of Palestine to safeguard their national existence is a very natural desire. However, Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.

 

[fanger]

The American Indians were not in possession of their land as a sovereign nation either

 

[Roudy]

The American Indians were not in possession of their land as a sovereign nation either

So are you suggesting that Arab savages give back all the lands they invaded?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.

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.

(QUESTION)

Where/when does it say that the (former WWI and WWII enemy population of) Arab Palestinian (indigenous, native, or citizen) has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 (the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected), wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian (former WWI and WWII enemy population) citizenry?

Most Respectfully,
R

to 1948 (the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected),​

What successor was selected and who selected it?

The UNPC and the UN respectively, as the UN absorbed the LoN and took on the role of enforcing the Mandate for Palestine.

What was the UNPC Charter?

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/bysubjectandentity?OpenPage&Start=4.7.15&Count=30&Expand=4.7.16

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an evolutionary process. The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.

"The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"

• Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
• Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
• Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

The question (Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?) is being approached from the wrong angle.

The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population? And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"

Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) (International Bill of Human Rights) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda ("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.").

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?

(REFERENCE GROUPS)

Decolonization and Self-Determination

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960​

General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)

Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination
General Assembly Resolution 49/148 23 December 1994​

General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization
General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007

United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Assembly Resolution 66/142 19 December 2011​

(COMMENT)

Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People (or as you say: "native inhabitance"), or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

"Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​

The ambiguity here is found in the question: When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people. And that is a matter of local legislation. Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for all the links that support my position.

So when does a recent migrant with full citizenship become a 2nd or 3rd class citizen and lose their human, civil and religious rights ?

I don't know. I have never posted such a proposition.

But you have when you stated that recent migrants with full citizenship get more rights than the indigenous. It was shown they didn't under international laws of the time, so the opposite must therefor be true ?

 

[MJB12741]

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?

OUTSTANDING QUESTION! Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.

Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool

I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.

Good show.

Aha! So let us get this straight. Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?

 

[MJB12741]

The American Indians were not in possession of their land as a sovereign nation either

So are you suggesting that Arab savages give back all the lands they invaded?

It is true that all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force from the native populations. Yes indeed, now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

 

[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?

OUTSTANDING QUESTION! Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.

Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool

I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.

Good show.

Aha! So let us get this straight. Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?

I never said that.

You are so confused.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Iraqi delegate, Mr. Jalami, summarized this position as follows:"I believe the world today is suffering from a lack of regard for certain fundamental principles of international relations and human life. We either lack these principles, or, if we do not lack them, we disregard them, or we are inconsistent in their application. This is the essence of the trouble with the world today.

The question of Palestine, for which a committee is being proposed, is no exception to this state of affairs. It is only a question resulting from a disregard of certain fundamental principles of human life; namely, the principle of self-determination, the principle of the right to live peacefully in one's own home, and the principle of self government in a democratic way.

I submit that if these principles were to be recommended by the Assembly the issue would be settled. If the consideration of these principles were put forward, there would be no problem in Palestine. The problem of Palestine consists merely in a disregard of the fundamental principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, a disregard of the very principles for which the mandate was made; it is the imposition of the will of one people over another without their consent. The Balfour Declaration violated these fundamental principles.

It sold one peoples' land to another without their consent, without their knowledge. That is why we in Iraq believe that the question is very simple. […] I am afraid that if this problem is not solved in the spirit of the United Nations it will create a world problem."

International Law

The intelligent were shoved aside and the stupid got their way.

 

[montelatici]

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?

OUTSTANDING QUESTION! Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.

Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool

I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.

Good show.

Aha! So let us get this straight. Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?

The indigenous people of Palestine are the people that inhabited the area called Palestine prior to partition. The religion they may have converted to has no bearing on the matter. The indigenous people were certainly not European colonists of whatever religion.