Thread: Hamas admits loosing control in Gaza

Originally Posted by Schnees

The Palestine Mandate is protected against termination by the UN Charter.

Now, you know.

We already were at this and found that the UN charta does not even mention it. Try again.
Also it was you who called the UN a joke and anti-Israel, right ?

Originally Posted by Voland

We already were at this and found that the UN charta does not even mention it. Try again.
Also it was you who called the UN a joke and anti-Israel, right ?

Article 77 of the UN Charter transferred the Palestine Mandate to UN trusteeship at the dissolution of the League of Nations.

Article 80 protects the Palestine Mandate against termination.

Now, you know.

Originally Posted by Schnees

Article 77 of the UN Charter transferred the Palestine Mandate to UN trusteeship at the dissolution of the League of Nations.

Article 80 protects the Palestine Mandate against termination.

Now, you know.

No, it doesn´t ( it is not even mentioned).
If it did, than the state of Israel would be illetigimate and Britain be in charge of ALL of Palestine.

Originally Posted by Schnees

UN Res. 181 and 242 were non-binding. D'oh.

You cannot cite even one binding "treaty" or "resolution" pertaining to the matter as you made it up.

In fact, the Palestine Mandate is the only legally enforceable document pertaining to the matter of the Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Now, you know.

The Palestine Mandate is not "binding." In fact, it's obsolete. It pertain to British rule, not Jewish nor Arab rule over the Levant.

UN Resolution 181, though not binding, is the impetus for the creation of the state of Israel, you nudnik. For all your bluster about the validity of Israel and then claim that UN Resolution 181 is "non-binding" is hilarious. Also, UN Resolution 242, while not an article VII resolution, is the basis for the two-state solution, Oslo, Roadmap, Taba, and other relevant frameworks to which both parties agreed to, so, it's quite schizophrenic of you to, on the one hand, cite an old colonial mandate as "international law" (which is not binding) and dismiss other resolutions that are based on international law, and to some extent the UN's charter (a case can be made that UNR 181 violated that charter by not taking into account the Palestinian Arab majority rights concerning partition, but that's another debate).

Originally Posted by Schnees

The Palestine Mandate is protected against termination by the UN Charter.

Now, you know.

Link please? I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Link please? I'll wait.

The UN Charter is readily available.

I'm waiting for Schnees to back up any of the claims he has made in the past couple of pages.

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

The Palestine Mandate is not "binding." In fact, it's obsolete. It pertain to British rule, not Jewish nor Arab rule over the Levant.

UN Resolution 181, though not binding, is the impetus for the creation of the state of Israel, you nudnik. For all your bluster about the validity of Israel and then claim that UN Resolution 181 is "non-binding" is hilarious. Also, UN Resolution 242, while not an article VII resolution, is the basis for the two-state solution, Oslo, Roadmap, Taba, and other relevant frameworks to which both parties agreed to, so, it's quite schizophrenic of you to, on the one hand, cite an old colonial mandate as "international law" (which is not binding) and dismiss other resolutions that are based on international law, and to some extent the UN's charter (a case can be made that UNR 181 violated that charter by not taking into account the Palestinian Arab majority rights concerning partition, but that's another debate).

The Palestine Mandate is binding, representing an international treaty among the members of the League of Nations, by unanimous ratification and a treaty with Great Britain as trustee.

UN Res. 181 is non-binding, so, have a good laugh at the facts.

You meant to say UN Res. 242 is not a Chapter 7 resolution, not an "Article" 7 resolution.

Furthermore, the San Remo Resolution transferring sovereignty over Palestine from the Ottoman Turks to the Jews constitutes international law, as a treaty among WW I Allies Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan.

Pallies have no rights as tenant farmers with no legal title to property.

Now, even YOU know.

Originally Posted by Schnees

The UN Charter is readily available.

Yes, that is why we´re asking you to back up your claims. Since we got eyes and can read.........:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Voland

Yes, that is why we´re asking you to back up your claims. Since we got eyes and can read.........:rolleyes:

I've already stated the relevant articles. Pay attention!

Originally Posted by Schnees

I've already stated the relevant articles. Pay attention!

No, you didn´t.
To put it as clear as possible once again :
You didn´t state shit.
Neither of these articles does even refer to the Palestine Mandate. And even if it did than the modern state of Israel would be illetigimate. Because the mandatory power was Britain.

Originally Posted by Schnees

The Palestine Mandate is binding, representing an international treaty among the members of the League of Nations, by unanimous ratification and a treaty with Great Britain as trustee.

UN Res. 181 is non-binding, so, have a good laugh at the facts.

You meant to say UN Res. 242 is not a Chapter 7 resolution, not an "Article" 7 resolution.

Furthermore, the San Remo Resolution transferring sovereignty over Palestine from the Ottoman Turks to the Jews constitutes international law, as a treaty among WW I Allies Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan.

Pallies have no rights as tenant farmers with no legal title to property.

Now, even YOU know.

San Remo Resolution:

(c) Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances allies sont: la France pour la Syrie, et la Grand Bretagne pour la Mesopotamie, et la Palestine.

Translation:
The chosen mandate powers are:
France for Syria,
Great Britain for Mesopotamia and Palestine.

It pays sometimes to speak foreign languages.

San Remo Resolution - Council on Foreign Relations

btw this dates to April 25th 1920. And is no longer valid.

It also contains the conditions of the Balfour Declaration:

, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

There is no mention whatever of the founding of an israeli state, no rights of Government given but the rights of the original Population (Semites btw, as all Arabs are) were explicitely upheld.

Now if you still don´t understand I´m afraid you´ll have to go back to primary.

I think, we should end the fruitless discussion here and leave the kid to play alone in the sandbox.