Hamas accepts Palestinian state with 1967 borders

Need me to comment upon this, moon?

 

Mandates don't exist anymore, as per the UN Charter Article 75 and 77.

they all became independent, self-governing, joined other states, or became Trusteeship Territories. You even admitted this when you said the Trusteeship Council is incharge of the Mandate of Palestine.

The rights of Article 80 refers to Trusteeship Territories.

 

all Mandates were abolished, as per the UN Charter.

they all became independent, self-governing, or became Trusteeship Territories.

YOU yourself said that Palestine became a Trusteeship Territory.

 

The Trusteeship council needs to be incharge of the Mandate and fulfill it's rights that been protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter. The thing that this council is on hold since 1993 does not change the fact that according to the internaional law, that such rghts needs be fulfilled and until such nothing can alter and change them, as I showed you earlier.

 

The British Mandate was indeed over, but the document of the Mandate is still valid thanks to Article 80 as I showed you earlier.

 

the document is just a filthy piece of paper.

the Mandate Agreement, according to you, became a Trusteeship Agreement under the management and control of the Trusteeship Council.

these are your words

 

The Trusteeship council needs to be incharge of the Mandate and fulfill it's rights that been protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter. The thing that this council is on hold since 1993 does not change the fact that according to the internaional law, that such rghts needs be fulfilled and until such nothing can alter and change them, as I showed you earlier.

 

You said the Trusteeship Council manages the Mandate Agreement.

and yet the Trusteeship Council website doesn't mention Palestine, anywhere.

in fact the Trusteeship Council website says the Council has fulfilled its duties and all territories under their control have received independence or self rule.

......and btw, Trusteeship Territory status for Palestine was merely a recommendation, it was never formalized.

You are sooooo beaten.

 

It still doesnt contradict what I wrote, you just make me repeat myself:
The Trusteeship council needs to be incharge of the Mandate and fulfill it's rights that been protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter. The thing that this council is on hold since 1993 does not change the fact that according to the internaional law, that such rghts needs be fulfilled and until such nothing can alter and change them, as I showed you earlier.

 

The Trusteeship Council doesn't manage Mandates.

They manage Trusteeship Territories.

Look it up. You'll see I am correct.

You fail.

 

As I already wrote to you:
Article 77 is stating that the trusteeship system is applied on, among others, territories held under Mandates established by the League of Nations after the First World War. Hence, it did apply to the document of the Mandate, which was created after the World War I and was adopted by the League of Nations. Article 80, by citing 77, ,is only saying that such Article (Article 80) apllies on teritories that were placed under mandates. Therefore, Article 80 is talking directly on the document of the Mandate, like the rest of the Mandates that were existd in 1946. The issue with the document of the Mandate is ta Article, since it was never been concluded, is been protected till this day by Article 80.

 

you said the Trusteeship Territories took over for the Mandates.

 

Trusteeship Council says their mission has been fulfilled.

 

yeah, and they don't list "Palestine" as a Trusteeship Territory.

They also say that their mission has been fulfilled.

Are you calling them "liars"?

 

I said what I wrote in my last comment. Once again:
Article 77 is stating that the trusteeship system is applied on, among others, territories held under Mandates established by the League of Nations after the First World War. Hence, it did apply to the document of the Mandate, which was created after the World War I and was adopted by the League of Nations. Article 80, by citing 77, ,is only saying that such Article (Article 80) apllies on teritories that were placed under mandates. Therefore, Article 80 is talking directly on the document of the Mandate, like the rest of the Mandates that were existd in 1946.

 

The Trusteeship council needs to be incharge of the Mandate and fulfill it's rights that been protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter. The thing that this council is on hold since 1993 does not change the fact that according to the internaional law, that such rghts needs be fulfilled and until such nothing can alter and change them, as I showed you earlier.

 

Er, no I asked for a specific link to a report you mentioned. I'd match my knowledge of al nakba with yours anyday. Now can you produce a link to this supposed report that claims that teh vast majority of 800.000 refugees were removed under gunpoint? I will wait.

No, some 200,000 lived within the green line border. YOu really should learn some history.

Wow, what a wonderful antiseptic view of history. You seem to forget that teh ARABS REJECTED any notion of peace. You seem to forget that there was a 2 year long civil. war raging in mandate prior to al nakba. You seem to forget the arabs "drive the jews into the sea" mantra, and their continuing refusals to wage peace.

As for driving the arabs out of what was then Israel, perhaps you can explain the arabs reactions to the offer in Jaffa, or perhaps you can explain why upon Israeli independence day there were a million arabs living in the country? Arabs immediately offered and granted citizenship.

Against their will? Nope, they could have stayed as stateless people if they wanted, or they could become citizens. your demographics arguments are long on accusation and short on actual fact.

Gee, seems you can't even read a wiki page. It was 100,000 arabs to return to Israel proper, AND another roughly 150,000 who would offered Israeli citizenship if the annexation of gaza was agreed to. You see Egypt didn't want gaza and the gazans didn't want egypt, just like the west bankers didn't want Jordanian governance or citizenship.

Not the un charter, You mean the Mandate. Not the indigenous population, the specifically named arab and jewish populations. Neither side upheld it, because the mandate became rather moot once the dust settled after the british ran away and the bullets stopped flying.

 

thank you that wasn't so hard was it?

Since there were roughly 250,00 to 300,000 arabs living in the effected area and according to this report from SHAI some 170k to 225k were "forcible removed". The fashion in which this report was compiled it does not take into account all of the people who fled prior to the IDF capturing the position. You are aware that refugees usually flee from violence, not stick around. So the report's methodology was "there was a population of x in this village" therefore the entire population was "ethnically cleansed" under gunpoint - which distorts the validity of the numbers, if not the actions to which I readily agree happened.

 

Driving out an ethnic population is ethnic cleansing- whether by fear or direct attack.

We see this in Israeli military 'phone calls to the population of Gaza- informing them that their homes are about to be bombed.

 

Are you for real? The IDF shouldn't warn people to evacuate an area, just go ahead and bomb it so they can't be so stupidly accused of "ethnic cleansing".

You ALWAYS step over the line from legit criticism into absurdist propaganda.

 

Indeed. That's because they don't want to ethnic cleanse anymore Palestinians than they have to, least there won't be enough to ethnic cleanse next time around

 

You reliably over-react when a neoZionist fascist ploy is exposed and discussed. Vive L'Internet.

 

Jonsa was spot on. Just consider your mind boggling statement, that tiny Israel is responsible for half the world's problems... I still laugh, when I remember it

 

Cancer cells are very small- and not at all funny.

 

But that is.