Israel demolishes West Bank homes, displacing 36 Palestinians

The Mandate run out without being fulfilled, it could not be fulfilled because the entire idea that the UK could decide the fate of the indigenous population of a third country was insane. That a bunch of people called the World Zionist Congress could be given the right to create a country based on nothing more than "what they wanted" and a tenuous link to the area 2000 years ago was a bizarre idea by 1946.

 

I suggest you increase your knowledge then, Zionist terrorist scum assassinated Lord Moyne in 1944, while Britain was still fighting the Nazi's. Has there ever been such treacherous people?

As I have shown you before, Zionist violence was the main issue for the British from 1936, we should of kicked every immigrant out of Palestine and told the World Zionist Council to go swivel.

 

It was a political murder not an offense on British troops, Hagana fought Lehi with the Brits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_Season

Nonsense, the Jewish violence was nothing compared to the Arab violence since 1936 since you brought it up, but I agree it was a big part of why the Brits shortened their staying here, you think the Brits "gave" the Jews a country, they didnt, they simply kept Arabs and Jews from tearing each other up as long as they were there, individual good heart brits are noted in Israel records God bless them but you Gov was no side on the matter, officialy you did try to kick the Jewish refugees but nothing can stand in the path of history, try to kick your European immigrants see if it works, tell them to go swivel.

 

That wasnt the official reason the Brits left, they just said they failed in their job and had no desire to continue, 181 was voted AFTER they decided to leave and they abstiened - not opposed 181, so clearly they did not officially held the opinion you mentioned, this is your point of view from a cozy couch in your nice European country in the 21st century, not an objective reasonable view on the historical event.

It would have failed if it was as you say, you may not understand it but it was not ment for you.

 

No I'm saying that the international law and the international instruments don't concur with your position at all. In fact they concur with mine and every other international body, including the ICJ. Your interpretation is wrong and your yourself are wrong.

What do you think of that?

No that's incorrect. The UK as the sovereign power holding by force of arms this territory had every right to administrate the trusteeship as it saw fit in accordance with international law. Its policy was agreed to by the entire international community and therefore it could interpret it exactly how it liked. Indeed, they clarified their obligation in the white paper of 1922.

The British did not alter these instruments, they clarified these instruments in 1922, this policy was agreed to by all parties in the UK and by all high contracting powers and by the League of Nations.

No the Article doesnt prefer Jews over Arabs in Palestine, be that to include or exclude Trans Jordan. It explicitly maintains that all peoples are to be protected.

Where?

Indeed, this difference is illegal - Jewish people get political, civil and religious rights while Arabs get only civil and religious rights. That's what you've stated.

That's why your position is wrong, do you want to go against what is written in international instruments?

Indeed, and this White paper policy was never once recinded or backed out from by the British government or anyone else. It was fully recognised as a valid policy by every single party to this entire matter. Checkmate.

Except the White paper has clarified that Jews may live there in peace in security but not as exclusive Israeli territory. This is agreed to by every single element, be it in Israel, the UK, the US, the UN, the ICJ etc etc.

 

The Mandate was indeed over, while the document of the Madnate has kept it's validity thanks to Article 80 of the UN Charter.

If you dont like it, then go to the UN, but you cant ignore this valid international instrument.

The document of the Madnate isnt based on "what they wanted", but on the historical connection that the Jews have with the Land of Israel from the ancient times until nowadays.

 

I didnt make an interpetation to the international law, but just read it and follow as it is.
The ICJ must to follow the international law, as been part of the UN, and therefore they cant violate nor ignore what is written there.

The White Paper has nothing to do with the document of the Mandate. The document of the Mandate was issued two months after the White Paper was created.
The White Paper only gave an interpetation to the Decleration of 1917, as it stated:

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

I never said that the Article prefer Jews over Arabs. Please re-read:
Right. The UN Charter, in Article 80, protects the rights that are stated in the documnet of the Mandate, and which those rights were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel so it would eventually help to re-establish the national home for the Jewish people (= politcal rights), and of course they are also protecting the civil and religous rights of the non-Jewish comminities.

That's what I said all along.

All over this forum, and also in our disscusions.

I'm not going against what is written in international instruments, since this is what is written in the international instrument that we are talking about. As the preamble of this international instrument states:

And in Article 2:

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

 

The ICJ followed international law. Its more of an expert on it than you or I. Therefore your reading of international law is flawed. Mine is correct.

Wrong.
In fact it gave interpretation to the future of Palestine as it saw it. Also the Hussein McMahon correspondence, the Sykes Pico agreement and the subsequent Balfour declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper

Wrong, you said that Jewish people get political, civil and religious rights while Arabs get only civil and religious rights.

That view is contrary to the UN charter and Article 80 which you have not quoted in full.

Where have you quoted it in full? Are you going to quote it in full eventually ?

Your going against UN article One and 80, and against the 1922 White paper which clarified the British view on the matter.

Why do you contradict all these international instruments? The ICJ has already decided that you do. But why?

 

During the Mandate (Please write this down for remembrance purpose) there were nothing called <indigenous people> they were called <minorities>= existing non-Jewish communities

 

ARABS ON JEWISH LANDS
~HBendor


ARABS ARE THE ONES ENCROACHING ON &#8216;THE LAND OF THE JEWS&#8217; AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

What one notices all over the Media&#8230; is that some pro-Arab reporters are bent at manipulating facts, are also trying their best with a premeditated intent to entice the readers to some revisionist historical data?

One of the myths connected to the Arab Israeli conflict, is that Israel and the whole of "Mandatory Palestine" before it, was stolen from the Arabs as a result of "Imperialist Machinations," and was settled by Alien Jews...

When one reads, contentious statements, i.e. quote: "Israel sits on the Arab land of Palestine, inhabited mostly by émigré Jews who had never set a foot in Palestine." Unquote&#8230; The reader is under the impression that such an assertion is accurate in every aspect, and, has received blessings and approbation from the enlightened communities of the world.

Nothing is further from the truth&#8230; Jews are not Aliens to their Land, (The Land of Israel from Time Immemorial)&#8230;! History proves that, Archeology proves that! "Jesus the Jewish prophet" (accepted as such by the Muslim religion), was born there whilst Judea and Israel (two Jewish Kingdoms) were under the yoke of the Roman Empire.

The Arab speaks Arabic the foreign Language of the Arabian Peninsula... [Arab = Arabia] does it ring any bells? The Arab practice Islam the Religion of Mohammed... which started with Mohammed in Mecca and Medina (Arabia) in the Seventh Century AD... does it ring any bells? Arabia is now called Saudi Arabia on the name of the Dynasty of Ibn-Saud from the Nejd (Central Arabia)... doesn't it ring LOUD & CLEAR! The Arabs before Islam&#8230; were nomads and polytheists, isn't this a fact?

The Jews claim Israel through History and Archeology! A proof&#8230; that even the Americans cannot subscribe to in their own realm... On the other hand, the Arabs claim to Palestine is TENUOUS/FLIMSY/ WEAK at best, has no substantiation whatsoever in Archeology to back and sustain its claims&#8230; The only vestige that would substantiate their respective passage through it&#8230; is a Mosque on the holiest site of Judaism.

Here are some statistics (AD=Anno Domini = CE=Common Era -- BCE= Before Common Era)

Israel Rule
1447BCE - 587BCE = 860 years

Babylon Conquest
587BCE - 540BCE = 47 years

Israel Autonomy (Under Persian rule)
540BCE - 163BCE = 377 years

Revolt of the Maccabees
163BCE - 143BCE = 20 years

Rule of the Hashmoneans
143BCE - 37 BCE = 106 years

Jewish Autonomy (Under Romans)
37BCE - 637CE = 674 years.

Total = 2084 years

Less 47 years of Babylon conquest - 47 years

TOTAL JEWISH RULE OVER ITS LAND - 2037 years


Rule of the Caliphates.

637CE - 1072CE = 435 years
Thus during the whole period of recorded History, Palestine was never ruled by the Arabs of Palestine. The Rule of the various Caliphates (KHILAFAH), a Foreign Moslem Rule and NOT necessarily Arab, extended over a period of 435 years.

Seljuk&#8217;s Rule (Turkmen)
1072CE - 1099CE = 27 years

Crusader Rule
1099CE - 1291CE = 192 years

Mameluk (slaves)
1291CE - 1517CE = 226 years

Ottoman Turk
1517CE - 1917CE = 400 years

British Mandate
1918CE - 1948CE = 30 years

Israel
1948 to date

 

Where does the Mandate for Palestine mention <<minorities>> as you claim?
You still HBendoring the true facts, I see.

 

Oh, Good Grief!!
Are you still trying to peddle the idea that the Palestinians arrived from the Hejaz?
HB, you have been trashed on that topic half a dozen times, but since you are a Top-5 Myth Purveyor, I am quite willing to do it again for new readers.

 

Correct. The Israelis SAID that they accepted the plan. But they never implemented 90% of the "181" requirements for an independent state.

 

So the terrorism continued during the war as I stated, it even appalled other Zionists to the point they assisted the Brits.

Read what the UN had to say,

RECOMMENDATION XI. APPEAL AGAINST ACTS OF VIOLENCE

It is recommended that

The General Assembly shall call on the peoples of Palestine to extend their. fullest cooperation to the United Nations in its effort to devise and put into effect an equitable and workable means of settling the difficult situation prevailing there, and to this end, in the interest of peace, good order, and lawfulness, to exert every effort to bring to an early end the acts of violence which have for too long beset that country.

Comment

(a) The United Nations, being seized with the problem of Palestine, should exert every proper effort to secure there a climate as congenial as possible to the application of a solution of the problem, both as regards the transitional and post-transitional periods.

(b) The recurrent acts of violence, until very recently confined almost exclusively to &#8226; under-ground Jewish organizations, are not only detrimental to the well-being of the country, but will also so augment the tension in Palestine as to render increasingly difficult the execution of the solution to be agreed upon by the United Nations.

Section B. Recommendation approved by substantial majority

The brits left because of the increasing violence against British troops, Britain was worn out after fighting Hitler. They could not reconcile the Zionist wants with the indigenous populations rights. They abstained because they did not wish to show bias towards Jews(by voting for) or the Arabs(by voting against) The fact that they had previously stated they would vote for any proposal they thought fair but did not vote for partition speaks volumes.

Israel is a total failure if you consider the majority of Jews do not live in the Jewish homeland and it is one of the most dangerous places for a Jew!

 

Negative
De facto actually means literally "in fact"
/facepalm

 

So if the ICJ followed international law, then he needed to follow Article 80 of the UN Charter that protects the rights that were garntd to the Jewsh over the Land of Israel.

I'm providing the actuall source of the Paper, while you prefer to provide link to a not reliable source that every child can write there.

As I already wrote to you:
I never said that the Article prefer Jews over Arabs. Please re-read:
Right. The UN Charter, in Article 80, protects the rights that are stated in the documnet of the Mandate, and which those rights were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel so it would eventually help to re-establish the national home for the Jewish people (= politcal rights), and of course they are also protecting the civil and religous rights of the non-Jewish comminities.

That's what I said all along.

I can give you Article 80 once again.

Source: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html

I'm not going against international law. I'm following it as it is. (like Article 80, which I have plenty of intenrational law experts that agree with me).

 

Funny. Israel and Jews is not mentioned AT ALL in article 80.

The UN charter does mention equal rights for all. So the Jews who ethnically cleansed Israel and banned Arabs from returning and thieving their property is a clear violation of that Charter.

Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

I think we've been through this quiet often.

You are. You're making up something that is not mentioned in article 80. If anything it protects the Balfour Declaration and so the rights of non-jewish people in Palestine. The rights Israel raped when they banned those people from going to their houses.

Jewish ones ranting for their Israel, sweettalking that ethnic cleansing is alright out of self interest. I haven't seen any international court accepting it at all.

 

First of all I never supported that terror and I dont defend it, you accuse the whole Jewish leadership of that and that's simply false as I showed the leadership did fight them with the Brits, later on they disbanded and were absorbed in the official leadership, as I would expect Hamas to do, even thou the terror of both cannot be compared.

The Brits left because they fought both Arab militants (1920 -1947 ) and Jewish militants (1930 -1947) and were sick of it and saw no peacful solution, not because Jewish terrorists that blew mostly empty building and bridges kicked them out.

Oh come on, you know it hurt me when you talk like that

 

I never said such thing! Please re-read:
The UN Charter, in Article 80, protects the rights that are stated in the documnet of the Mandate, and which those rights were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel so it would eventually help to re-establish the national home for the Jewish people (= politcal rights), and of course they are also protecting the civil and religous rights of the non-Jewish comminities.

RIght, Article 80 is protecting the civil and religous rights of the non-Jewish communities in the Land of Israel, while it is also protecting the political rights, in frm of a national home in the Land of Israel) that were grantedto the Jews in the document of the Mandate. That's what the Balfour Decleration said as well.

BTW- are you supporting an existing of housees that were build illegaly?

 

It might well mean "in fact" but in law, de facto, is not acceptable as legal status of full statehood.

 

They did follow the UN Charter. That's why they came to their ruling.

Is there something wrong with the wiki article? It's references to the avalon.law.yale.edu link are there too.
Do you think it's missed something?

Here's the white paper in full;
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

As you can see the wording is quite clear. It's clarifying the declaration while addressing the hussein mcmahon letters and the future of Palestine to which it was entrusted.

Except you maintain that Jews are to be given special status across all Palestine such that Israel can be re constituted wherever it likes in Palestine. No one agrees with that. And no charter does either.

Indeed. So why haven't you quoted the last part?
Do you think the last part gives Israel the right to establish itself wherever it likes in western Palestine?

You certainly are. The icj just demonstrated that. As does the opinion of every other national and international body.

 

Bullcrap!! Pure Hasbara. But we are used to it. I am here to bust those Myths. I see others have already assaulted your so-called evidence (praised by a few gullible members). But I want my piece, because I thought you detractors were lenient on you given that you are defending blatant war crimes:

That was indeed a BBC documentary, made in 1997, in which Deir Yassin featured, called "The Fifty Years War". But you chose to post a clip which so cherry-picked the original that it distorted the message of the producer Zvi Dor-Ner completely. Not only do you cherry-pick only the parts that only refute the rape of women from Deir Yassin, but you then make a Zionist leap of faith that, since the number of rapes was minimal, there was no massacre at Deir Yassin!!. That is a gross logical fallacy; a very low form of debate called "addressing the strawman". You have been caught out - your mini-holocaust denial has been exposed.

What is my proof? Let us see what CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy In Middle-East Reportinin America) - a right-wing ultra-Zionist group - had to say about this BBC video - http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=46&x_review=20 "The Arab village strategically located on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road was overrun by Jewish forces in 1948 and more than a hundred Arab villagers were killed. While Palestinian Arabs have termed the event a massacre and have focused on it as emblematic of alleged Jewish policy, the PBS account includes interviews with Jews and Arabs present at the village who tell a more complex story. That deaths occurred is undisputed ..."

But even CAMERA could not bring itself to tell the whole truth and needed to cherry-pick out a very disturbing feature of those killings by the two Zionist terrorist organisations. That omission was taken up by Israeli historian Benny Morris who had undertaken a decade of research into official Haganah, Lehi and Irgun archives - "Almost all of the 110 persons massacred by Jewish forces (at Deir Yassin) were women and children".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGkxvaxAy7s

And you claim there was no massacre!!

HASBARA MYTH BUSTED!! - The massacre of innocent Palestinian women and children at Deir Yassin is just as much fact of war crimes today as it was on 9 April 1947.

 

So are you saying that the ICJ advisory opinion actually said that Jews have the right to settle in the West Bank, according to Article 80 that protects the rights that were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel, which one of them was to settle anywhere in "Palestine"?

The White Paper, according to the actuall Paper, was an interpetetaion to the decleration of 1917, and not for the document of the Mandate, as you calimed it to be.

While the correspondents of 1915 never created an valid and binding agreement between the parties, in 1919, Faisel, the son of Hussain, the Amir of Mecca which which was part of the correspondents of 1915 and represented the kingdom of Hedjaz, signed an agreement with Weizmann that stated that Trans-Jordan will be for the Arabs to control, while "Palestine", which was from the river to the sea will be for the Jews and the Arabs would recognize the Balfour Declaration and would encourage Jewish immigration and settlement in "Palestine".

As Article 3 stated:

And As Article 4 stated:

Source: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpo...the weizmann-feisal agreement 3-jan-1919.aspx

Well, Article 80 protects the political rights that were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel which was from the river to the sea, after Trans-Jordan was given to the Hashemite family, while the civil and religous rights of the non-Jewish communities are been protected, as the document of the Mandate states.

It is all according to international instruments. You already agreed with me that international instruments and laws need to be fulfilled.

You can read it in the link I provided, that's why I provided a source.
Of course that still Article 80 protects the political rights that were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel and the civil and religous rights that need to be protected of the non-Jewish communities. plenty of international law experts agree with me. Among of them you can find Prof. Rostow, one of the drafters of Resolution 242, and Dr. Gauthier that this Article exists in his PhD thesis work etc.

It's all against and been contradicted by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

 

RUBBISH!!! You have no source for that piece of Hasbara. Please read the full text of UNGA 181 again to confirm my view. Part 1 of the Plan of Partition, Section B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE spells out a series of actions that needed to be undertaken by the Provisional Governments of each (Jewish and Arab) state before independence could be GRANTED.

HB, do you not remember what Erskine Childers recommended in 1961 "We should always check all Zionist claims as to the truth". And here we have a classic case of why that is necessary. Discect the Hasbara, and the MYTHS come tumbling out.

 

Of course they do. But not as Israelis. Unless Palestinians can settle anywhere in Israel as Palestinians. Do you agree to that?

In fact the White Paper addresses everything to do with Palestine, including Balfour and including the mandate, that's why it speaks about the subject of the mandate and what it intends for it..

Indeed Article 80 and the UN charter protects everyone equally in Palestine. You agreed that international instruments need to be fulfilled and you agree with every national and international organisation don't you?

Indeed but most agree with me.

No it follows the entire UN Charter and that's why international law experts agree with me as well as all international bodies and all nations.