7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Obviously NO! ----

Was either Faisal or Weizmann Palestinian?

(COMMENT)

But there again, neither Faisal or Weizmann where officers of Opposition Forces to the Allied Powers in WWI and WWII.

The Arab League was born on 22 March 1945, and the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) were not exclusively "Palestinian" either. The AHC was the Principle organ of the Arab community of territroy under the Mandate for Palestine. The AHC was not established on UNTIL April 1936, by Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a former Ottoman Combat Arms Officer, and instigator of the 1929 Riots. There was no Palestine organization, or a cooperative leader in the Arab community in the region of Palestine. Even the AHC turned out to be belligerent.

In fact, in 1919, when HRH Prince Faisal and Chairman Weizmann made the agreement, the designation of Palestine was not yet defined. Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, was not fully delineated until the Franco-British Boundary Commission concluded its survey and the Paulet-Newcombe Line was adopted in 1923. Three attempts between 1920 and 1923, were made to establish an institution for the Arab population of Palestine similar to the Jewish Agency; but to no avail. AND, it was not until the Treaty of Alliance between the UK and Trans-Jordan (AKA: Treaty of London, 22 March 1946), that the sovereignty and independence of the Arab State of Transjordan, to be known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which establish was was to become the formal Eastern boundary of the territory subject to the Mandate of Palestine; but excluding Trans-Jordan. (The exceptions and clarification being: 1) Between 1928 and 1946, a series of successive British-Transjordanian treaties gradually led to full independence for Transjordan in 1946. 2) The Jordan - Saudi Arabia Boundary which was re-delimited as a result of a bilateral agreement signed on August 10, 1965.)

Sorry, you can't use that as a legitimate argument. The foremost respected and prominent Arab Leader of the Region was HRH Prince Faisal. And even those that were indigenous regional Arabs, did not want to establish self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Three attempts between 1920 and 1923, were made to establish an institution for the Arab population of Palestine similar to the Jewish Agency; but to no avail.​

Why would they want an organization that would be the little sister of an organization they viewed as foreign and illegitimate? That would just add legitimacy to that foreign organization.

And look were it got them, what are the odds if they could go back in time that they would make the right decision. Remember it was not arab muslim land, but LoN land and as such the LoN had full sovereign control and could do as they wanted with the land. The arab muslims thought that they had the upper hand but found out very quickly they didn't.
Talking about foreign organisations what did the APG do for the Palestinians from its seat in Cairo ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Obviously NO! ----

Was either Faisal or Weizmann Palestinian?

(COMMENT)

But there again, neither Faisal or Weizmann where officers of Opposition Forces to the Allied Powers in WWI and WWII.

The Arab League was born on 22 March 1945, and the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) were not exclusively "Palestinian" either. The AHC was the Principle organ of the Arab community of territroy under the Mandate for Palestine. The AHC was not established on UNTIL April 1936, by Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a former Ottoman Combat Arms Officer, and instigator of the 1929 Riots. There was no Palestine organization, or a cooperative leader in the Arab community in the region of Palestine. Even the AHC turned out to be belligerent.

In fact, in 1919, when HRH Prince Faisal and Chairman Weizmann made the agreement, the designation of Palestine was not yet defined. Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, was not fully delineated until the Franco-British Boundary Commission concluded its survey and the Paulet-Newcombe Line was adopted in 1923. Three attempts between 1920 and 1923, were made to establish an institution for the Arab population of Palestine similar to the Jewish Agency; but to no avail. AND, it was not until the Treaty of Alliance between the UK and Trans-Jordan (AKA: Treaty of London, 22 March 1946), that the sovereignty and independence of the Arab State of Transjordan, to be known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which establish was was to become the formal Eastern boundary of the territory subject to the Mandate of Palestine; but excluding Trans-Jordan. (The exceptions and clarification being: 1) Between 1928 and 1946, a series of successive British-Transjordanian treaties gradually led to full independence for Transjordan in 1946. 2) The Jordan - Saudi Arabia Boundary which was re-delimited as a result of a bilateral agreement signed on August 10, 1965.)

Sorry, you can't use that as a legitimate argument. The foremost respected and prominent Arab Leader of the Region was HRH Prince Faisal. And even those that were indigenous regional Arabs, did not want to establish self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

In fact, in 1919, when HRH Prince Faisal and Chairman Weizmann made the agreement, the designation of Palestine was not yet defined.​

So?

By then the Palestinians had openly opposed the Zionist colonial project for 20 years. If heeded, we would not be in the hundred year, and counting, war that we are in now.

You cant say that as you have no evidence to support your claim. The war has been going on for 1400 years and it all started when mo'mad decided to eliminate the Jews from Medina and take their property. The how and why are detailed in historical records of the time and show that muslims have always been intent on mass murder and land grabs. So place 99% of the blame at the muslims feet, and look to ways of quelling the muslims blood lust

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes I did say it. The Arabs, at some point, must take responsibility for their action. In the present day, where the Arab-Palestinians object to peace negotiations without pre-conditions, is not the first time, nor the second time, nor event the third time, they have refused to come to the negotiation table --- and then complain about the outcome that they made not contribution to or provided input for.

"Say what you want, but the Immigration (not colonization) proceeded in accordance the agreement, and without any Palestinian objection."

Are you shittin' me. You didn't really just say that, did you.

(FROM THE RECORD)

The Political History of Palestine under British Administration --- The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947​

(COMMENT)

Now as we all know, the Immigration Effort over time, was curtailed several time by the Mandatory; as it capitulated to Arab Pressures brought to a head by the Arab Revolt. As the pressures to escape anti-Jewish programs increased, and the increased Jewish immigration, attempting to escape the Nazi regime solutions ---- as well as a general rise in anti-Semitism throughout Europe created a bottleneck forcing many Jews to face German round-ups. The revolt which largely prompted the Mandatory to restrict Jewish immigration was orchestrated by the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini and Nazi Sympathizer.

"His opposition to the British peaked during the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, evading an arrest warrant, he fled Palestine and took refuge in, successively, the French Mandate of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Iraq, until he established himself in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. During World War II he collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. At war's end, he came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution." SOURCE: Wikipedia
​

To deny that the Arabs, of the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine, refused to participate in the self-government process and to provide direct advise and input on the immigration issue, is nothing more than (as Arab Palestinians often do) avoiding the consequences of their action.

Most Respectfully,
R

And there lies the problem "a Legislative Council without an Arab majority" that the muslims could not accept as it meant they were not in power, and equal to the Jews and Christians. They saw themselves as the overlords who ruled and owned everything, and so could not accept the loss of face. This meant they had to refuse the LoN requests and resort to violence to achieve their place at the top.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes I did say it. The Arabs, at some point, must take responsibility for their action. In the present day, where the Arab-Palestinians object to peace negotiations without pre-conditions, is not the first time, nor the second time, nor event the third time, they have refused to come to the negotiation table --- and then complain about the outcome that they made not contribution to or provided input for.

"Say what you want, but the Immigration (not colonization) proceeded in accordance the agreement, and without any Palestinian objection."

Are you shittin' me. You didn't really just say that, did you.

(FROM THE RECORD)

The Political History of Palestine under British Administration --- The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947​

(COMMENT)

Now as we all know, the Immigration Effort over time, was curtailed several time by the Mandatory; as it capitulated to Arab Pressures brought to a head by the Arab Revolt. As the pressures to escape anti-Jewish programs increased, and the increased Jewish immigration, attempting to escape the Nazi regime solutions ---- as well as a general rise in anti-Semitism throughout Europe created a bottleneck forcing many Jews to face German round-ups. The revolt which largely prompted the Mandatory to restrict Jewish immigration was orchestrated by the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini and Nazi Sympathizer.

"His opposition to the British peaked during the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, evading an arrest warrant, he fled Palestine and took refuge in, successively, the French Mandate of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Iraq, until he established himself in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. During World War II he collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. At war's end, he came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution." SOURCE: Wikipedia
​

To deny that the Arabs, of the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine, refused to participate in the self-government process and to provide direct advise and input on the immigration issue, is nothing more than (as Arab Palestinians often do) avoiding the consequences of their action.

Most Respectfully,
R

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​

Indeed, but to cooperate with the government would be to cooperate with the Zionist colonial project. They would be cooperating with their own demise.

That is really one stupid argument to make.

By not cooperating with the LoN they have insured their demise and to be hated by the world. Just look at how they live now, can you see any change in the next 100 years ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Like I use to tell my kids --- "you don't always get what you want in real life."

By then the Palestinians had openly opposed the Zionist colonial project for 20 years. If heeded, we would not be in the hundred year, and counting, war that we are in now.

(COMMENT)

It was not their decision to make.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

No you prefer war as well as Palestinians already having universal, inalienable rights the same as everyone else. What rights dont they have that they are themselves are stopping from being put in place ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Security Council Resolution 1397 (2002):

• Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;​

The entire purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security.

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

The question of the first order is: Where are the Universal Rights made binding?

• A/RES/3/217 A --- 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

∆ The UDHR is not binding and not international law; it does not in form a binding or enforceable covenant, convention treaty or law.
​

• The Right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty, are essentially the same "right" and related through Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) and 2(4), of the UN Charter. The "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States "(DoP) also outlines the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination (BUT NOT the Right of Return).

The Palestinian Arab people through the voice of the Palestine National Council, exercise its "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" over its territory, established the State of Palestine, with its capital at Jerusalem: --- Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

The obligation to the Palestinians in this regard has been met.
​

√ Right of Return to their homes and property.

There is no enforceable convention, covenant, declaration, resolution, treaty or law that enacts RoR. General Assembly 194 is non-binding.

​

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.

The DoP:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

Is it, like, the right to declare "palestine" wherever they see convenient?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Security Council Resolution 1397 (2002):

• Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;​

The entire purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security.

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

The question of the first order is: Where are the Universal Rights made binding?

• A/RES/3/217 A --- 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

∆ The UDHR is not binding and not international law; it does not in form a binding or enforceable covenant, convention treaty or law.
​

• The Right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty, are essentially the same "right" and related through Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) and 2(4), of the UN Charter. The "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States "(DoP) also outlines the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination (BUT NOT the Right of Return).

The Palestinian Arab people through the voice of the Palestine National Council, exercise its "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" over its territory, established the State of Palestine, with its capital at Jerusalem: --- Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

The obligation to the Palestinians in this regard has been met.
​

√ Right of Return to their homes and property.

There is no enforceable convention, covenant, declaration, resolution, treaty or law that enacts RoR. General Assembly 194 is non-binding.

​

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.

The DoP:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.​

It is merely a choice.

You can continue to deny rights where people will continue to fight for them.

Or you can recognize rights and there will be peace.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Security Council Resolution 1397 (2002):

• Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;​

The entire purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security.

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

The question of the first order is: Where are the Universal Rights made binding?

• A/RES/3/217 A --- 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

∆ The UDHR is not binding and not international law; it does not in form a binding or enforceable covenant, convention treaty or law.
​

• The Right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty, are essentially the same "right" and related through Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) and 2(4), of the UN Charter. The "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States "(DoP) also outlines the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination (BUT NOT the Right of Return).

The Palestinian Arab people through the voice of the Palestine National Council, exercise its "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" over its territory, established the State of Palestine, with its capital at Jerusalem: --- Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

The obligation to the Palestinians in this regard has been met.
​

√ Right of Return to their homes and property.

There is no enforceable convention, covenant, declaration, resolution, treaty or law that enacts RoR. General Assembly 194 is non-binding.

​

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.

The DoP:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.​

It is merely a choice.

You can continue to deny rights where people will continue to fight for them.

Or you can recognize rights and there will be peace.

That's just nonsense. You need to read the Hamas Charter for a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism. There is no possibility of peace in the face of the Hamas terrorists insisting that Israel is a part of greater muhammud'istan (an Islamist waqf).

The problem you have with spewing such taqiyya is that the kuffar understands islamo-fascism and such fascistic ideas are both a part of islamo-history and written as a part of Islamo-ideology.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Security Council Resolution 1397 (2002):

• Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;​

The entire purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security.

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

The question of the first order is: Where are the Universal Rights made binding?

• A/RES/3/217 A --- 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

∆ The UDHR is not binding and not international law; it does not in form a binding or enforceable covenant, convention treaty or law.
​

• The Right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty, are essentially the same "right" and related through Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) and 2(4), of the UN Charter. The "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States "(DoP) also outlines the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination (BUT NOT the Right of Return).

The Palestinian Arab people through the voice of the Palestine National Council, exercise its "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" over its territory, established the State of Palestine, with its capital at Jerusalem: --- Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

The obligation to the Palestinians in this regard has been met.
​

√ Right of Return to their homes and property.

There is no enforceable convention, covenant, declaration, resolution, treaty or law that enacts RoR. General Assembly 194 is non-binding.

​

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.

The DoP:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.​

It is merely a choice.

You can continue to deny rights where people will continue to fight for them.

Or you can recognize rights and there will be peace.

That's just nonsense. You need to read the Hamas Charter for a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism. There is no possibility of peace in the face of the Hamas terrorists insisting that Israel is a part of greater muhammud'istan (an Islamist waqf).

The problem you have with spewing such taqiyya is that the kuffar understands islamo-fascism and such fascistic ideas are both a part of islamo-history and written as a part of Islamo-ideology.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Security Council Resolution 1397 (2002):

• Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;​

The entire purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security.

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

The question of the first order is: Where are the Universal Rights made binding?

• A/RES/3/217 A --- 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

∆ The UDHR is not binding and not international law; it does not in form a binding or enforceable covenant, convention treaty or law.
​

• The Right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty, are essentially the same "right" and related through Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) and 2(4), of the UN Charter. The "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States "(DoP) also outlines the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination (BUT NOT the Right of Return).

The Palestinian Arab people through the voice of the Palestine National Council, exercise its "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" over its territory, established the State of Palestine, with its capital at Jerusalem: --- Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

The obligation to the Palestinians in this regard has been met.
​

√ Right of Return to their homes and property.

There is no enforceable convention, covenant, declaration, resolution, treaty or law that enacts RoR. General Assembly 194 is non-binding.

​

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.

The DoP:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.​

It is merely a choice.

You can continue to deny rights where people will continue to fight for them.

Or you can recognize rights and there will be peace.

That's just nonsense. You need to read the Hamas Charter for a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism. There is no possibility of peace in the face of the Hamas terrorists insisting that Israel is a part of greater muhammud'istan (an Islamist waqf).

The problem you have with spewing such taqiyya is that the kuffar understands islamo-fascism and such fascistic ideas are both a part of islamo-history and written as a part of Islamo-ideology.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

Hamas is a cheap islamo-tent. However they won't fold. Their fascist views are in accord with islamist ideology and you seem to have forgotten that they were "elected" by the Pali fascists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Security Council Resolution 1397 (2002):

• Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;​

The entire purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security.

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

The question of the first order is: Where are the Universal Rights made binding?

• A/RES/3/217 A --- 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

∆ The UDHR is not binding and not international law; it does not in form a binding or enforceable covenant, convention treaty or law.
​

• The Right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty, are essentially the same "right" and related through Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) and 2(4), of the UN Charter. The "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States "(DoP) also outlines the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination (BUT NOT the Right of Return).

The Palestinian Arab people through the voice of the Palestine National Council, exercise its "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" over its territory, established the State of Palestine, with its capital at Jerusalem: --- Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

The obligation to the Palestinians in this regard has been met.
​

√ Right of Return to their homes and property.

There is no enforceable convention, covenant, declaration, resolution, treaty or law that enacts RoR. General Assembly 194 is non-binding.

​

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.

The DoP:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.​

It is merely a choice.

You can continue to deny rights where people will continue to fight for them.

Or you can recognize rights and there will be peace.

That's just nonsense. You need to read the Hamas Charter for a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism. There is no possibility of peace in the face of the Hamas terrorists insisting that Israel is a part of greater muhammud'istan (an Islamist waqf).

The problem you have with spewing such taqiyya is that the kuffar understands islamo-fascism and such fascistic ideas are both a part of islamo-history and written as a part of Islamo-ideology.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

Hamas is a cheap islamo-tent. However they won't fold. Their fascist views are in accord with islamist ideology and you seem to have forgotten that they were "elected" by the Pali fascists.

Indeed, but they were running against money grubbing, corrupt, traitors.

Clearly a lesser of two evils.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One thing is for sure, if the Arab Palestinians turned peaceful, greater opportunities would open.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

(COMMENT)

It is Palestinian policy to use force and violence to coerce a surrender to Palestinian demands. That simply is not going to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One thing is for sure, if the Arab Palestinians turned peaceful, greater opportunities would open.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

(COMMENT)

It is Palestinian policy to use force and violence to coerce a surrender to Palestinian demands. That simply is not going to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why they are moving to non violence and BDS.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Security Council Resolution 1397 (2002):

• Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;​

The entire purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security.

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

The question of the first order is: Where are the Universal Rights made binding?

• A/RES/3/217 A --- 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

∆ The UDHR is not binding and not international law; it does not in form a binding or enforceable covenant, convention treaty or law.
​

• The Right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty, are essentially the same "right" and related through Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) and 2(4), of the UN Charter. The "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States "(DoP) also outlines the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination (BUT NOT the Right of Return).

The Palestinian Arab people through the voice of the Palestine National Council, exercise its "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" over its territory, established the State of Palestine, with its capital at Jerusalem: --- Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

The obligation to the Palestinians in this regard has been met.
​

√ Right of Return to their homes and property.

There is no enforceable convention, covenant, declaration, resolution, treaty or law that enacts RoR. General Assembly 194 is non-binding.

​

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.

The DoP:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.​

It is merely a choice.

You can continue to deny rights where people will continue to fight for them.

Or you can recognize rights and there will be peace.

And what rights are being refused to the Palestinians, and who is refusing them.

They have the right to free determination yet refuse to take the last steps

They have the right to territorial integrity yet refuse to take the last steps

They have the right to defend against aggression, yet are the main aggressors

They have the right to freedom yet are the ones that deny freedom

So do explain what rights they don't have that are being blocked by anyone other than by themselves.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Security Council Resolution 1397 (2002):

• Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;​

The entire purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security.

So you prefer perpetual war over granting the Palestinians universal, inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

The question of the first order is: Where are the Universal Rights made binding?

• A/RES/3/217 A --- 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

∆ The UDHR is not binding and not international law; it does not in form a binding or enforceable covenant, convention treaty or law.
​

• The Right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty, are essentially the same "right" and related through Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) and 2(4), of the UN Charter. The "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States "(DoP) also outlines the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination (BUT NOT the Right of Return).

The Palestinian Arab people through the voice of the Palestine National Council, exercise its "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" over its territory, established the State of Palestine, with its capital at Jerusalem: --- Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988 --- This compound right was not denied them by the Israelis at any time.

The obligation to the Palestinians in this regard has been met.
​

√ Right of Return to their homes and property.

There is no enforceable convention, covenant, declaration, resolution, treaty or law that enacts RoR. General Assembly 194 is non-binding.

​

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.

The DoP:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The question itself is problematic. It stipulates a Choice: Between "perpetual war" and "universal, inalienable rights." This in itself is a form of coercion.​

It is merely a choice.

You can continue to deny rights where people will continue to fight for them.

Or you can recognize rights and there will be peace.

That's just nonsense. You need to read the Hamas Charter for a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism. There is no possibility of peace in the face of the Hamas terrorists insisting that Israel is a part of greater muhammud'istan (an Islamist waqf).

The problem you have with spewing such taqiyya is that the kuffar understands islamo-fascism and such fascistic ideas are both a part of islamo-history and written as a part of Islamo-ideology.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

The problem is no Palestinian wants peace as they know they will be taken over by extremists. Yes hamas might fold but the same people would still be in charge no matter who took over. The same charters would be in existence and adhered to making any peace unworkable. And the chance of a fair peace mutually agreed is a pipe dream as the palestinians want it all. Time for the UN to pull the plug and force the Palestinians to support themselves

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One thing is for sure, if the Arab Palestinians turned peaceful, greater opportunities would open.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

(COMMENT)

It is Palestinian policy to use force and violence to coerce a surrender to Palestinian demands. That simply is not going to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why they are moving to non violence and BDS.

So the series of murders just recently is the Palestinians being non violent, and from what I have seen of BDS it is very violent. So want to try again only this time saying they are stepping up the violence to start another war

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Agreed. But then, in almost every conflict involving Muslims and Jewish, religion becomes an element. It does not mean that the focus of the conflict was along religious lines.

True. Although you cannot ignore the effects of religion in this conflict, Zionist Hasbara likes to focus on the religious element in order to deflect from the fact that from the very start, the Zionist objective was colonisation and disposession by force, which would necessitate the extermination or expulsion of the indigenous population in order to ultimately create a state for Jewish people only.

(COMMENT)

In 1919 The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement made a few of the early intents a matter of record:

• [T]he surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine,

• The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.

• Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.
​

The record and the very first Arab-Jewish Agreement, of the long line of agreements that were to followed, made it plain that NEITHER --- His Royal Highness the Amir FAISAL (representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ), and Dr. CHAIM WEIZMANN (representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organisation), had any intention to take anything by force. FAISAL and WEIZANN agreed that these essential concepts were important enough to set down in writing:

• All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
​

And these concepts were set down in writing and given such consideration, by the Allied Powers at 1920 San Remo Conference, that they were amplified and included in the Mandate for Palestine. (See Articles 2, 4, and 6) If there was some "colonization agenda," THEN it was not just the Zionist involved --- but with the knowledge and active participation by the Arab Community and agreed to by the Allied Powers to which Turkey renounced all territorial rights and title; and with the understanding that "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned" (the appropriate Allied Powers). (See Article 16 of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, 24 July, 1923; See Part III --- Sections VII Articles 94 thru 97 and Article 132, Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey Signed at Sevres 10 August 1920; and again See Article 16, The Armistice of Mudros, 30 October, 1918)

Even before the Treaty of Lausanne went into force, the first of the significant clashes called the "Bloody Passover" riot of March 1920 occurred (prompting the creation of the first version of the Haganah in June), and then the1929 Riots violence at the Wailing Wall had occurred, organized the a former enemy Ottoman Army Officer turn Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem; and the Palestinian Black Hand was founded.

It is hypothesized that Haj Amin al-Husseini was a prime mover and personality involved in the organization of the 1920 Riots, which he politically benefited from in his 1921 rise to Mufti of Jerusalem. And again, Haj Amin al-Husseini was a principle instigator behind the 1929 riots. While there are nearly always overtones in any Islamic clash, behind it all was the power, wealth, and prominent influence that came with the leadership that was behind the anti-Jewish movement.

Any time you talk about immigration and settlements --- and argument can be made using the simplistic understand of "colonisation and disposession." And in the same vein, it was nothing that the senior Arab Leadership in the immediate post-War years, did not understand and appreciate.

It is rare to find a pro-Palestinian that does not blame all the regional ills on the Israelis. Similarly, most Israelis see the Palestinians as the dominant influence in the Regional history of 1920 to the present in rioting, murder, hijacking, piracy, bombing and general assaults on Israeli citizens. Both positions take the extreme, and both have elements of truth and disinformation in them. But at the end of the day, both side are now at the line of an unproductive line or pursuit. The region is no closer to peace today, then it was in 1920. and it is not likely to change if the leadership does not open a dialog.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Feisal-Weitzmann agreement is a footnote in history. It had no impact other than a wistfull "what might have been" scenario.

• All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

I find this interesting; you emphasise, "encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale" where I would have emphasised, "In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development." The Zionists had no intention of fulfilling this aspect regardless of what Wietzmann may have said.

 

[Challenger]

Even before the Treaty of Lausanne went into force, the first of the significant clashes called the "Bloody Passover" riot of March 1920 occurred (prompting the creation of the first version of the Haganah in June), and then the1929 Riots violence at the Wailing Wall had occurred, organized the a former enemy Ottoman Army Officer turn Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem; and the Palestinian Black Hand was founded.

It is hypothesized that Haj Amin al-Husseini was a prime mover and personality involved in the organization of the 1920 Riots, which he politically benefited from in his 1921 rise to Mufti of Jerusalem. And again, Haj Amin al-Husseini was a principle instigator behind the 1929 riots. While there are nearly always overtones in any Islamic clash, behind it all was the power, wealth, and prominent influence that came with the leadership that was behind the anti-Jewish movement.

RoccoR are you taking Hasbara lessons? Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Zionist's favourite bogy man, (second only to Adolf hitler) was a Muslim, not an Islamist, despite earlier service in the Ottoman army he joined the Arab revolt and was helped liberate Palestine from Ottoman domination. There is no evidence at all that he had anything to do with the 1920 Nebi Musa riots, was vehemently pro-British at the time, (...the Palin report noted that Captain C. D. Brunton, who recruited these Arabs, acted in cooperation with a 'Sherifian officer named Hagg Ameen el Husseini, who was described at the time as being very pro-English') and when he was appointed Grand Mufti, sucessfully maintained peace in jerusalem every in every annual Nabi Musa event from 1921-1928.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One thing is for sure, if the Arab Palestinians turned peaceful, greater opportunities would open.

You are just blowing smoke. If there was peace Hamas would fold like a cheap tent.

(COMMENT)

It is Palestinian policy to use force and violence to coerce a surrender to Palestinian demands. That simply is not going to work.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why they are moving to non violence and BDS.

So the series of murders just recently is the Palestinians being non violent, and from what I have seen of BDS it is very violent. So want to try again only this time saying they are stepping up the violence to start another war

Why do you leave out all of the violence against the Palestinians by Israel.

A half truth is the same as a lie because it is meant to deceive.