Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Phoenall, et al,
I think you have confused your terminology and timeline.
(COMMENT)Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.
It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.
The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.
Who "owns" the land is a civil real estate issue; with nothing to do with sovereignty.
In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the West Bank and engaged Jordanian Forces on Jordanian territory (annexed in 1951). Israeli Forces routed the Jordanian Forces and Occupied the West Bank. In 1988, Jordan severed all ties and governance over the West Bank. In 1993, by means of Article 3 of the Israel-Jordanian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:
Article 3 - International Boundary said:1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.
In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the Gaza Strip which was occupied by Egyptian Forces. The Egyptian Forces were routed and Israeli Forces assumed the occupation. In 1979, by means of Article II of the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:
Article II said:The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
Most Respectfully,
R
"In 1967, in a preemptive strike "
Like Pearl Harbor.
No as Pearl Harbour was a declaration of war, the US had not stated its intentions to attack Japan
The U.S. implemented an oil embargo on Japan/Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (access to Aqaba) both moves were interpreted as acts of war. Japan strikes pre-emptively/Israel strikes pre-emptively.
The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?
This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State
When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf
The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
The right to self determination without external interference.
The right to independence and sovereignty.
The right to territorial integrity.
So which state transferred territory to the arab muslims in Palestine, and were is the title deed or treaty signed by all parties accepting the territory. Don't try your usual treaties that don't mention Palestine by name other than in the context of "the British mandate of Palestine hereinafter called Palestine "
If transferred, it would have been transferred to the Palestine Arab Delegation made up of Christians and Muslims, which were the contracting party vis-a-vis the Mandatory. The other party being the Zionist Organization as per below:
PALESTINE.- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
Try again child as you are referencing letters written between the mandatory powers and interested parties, these are not legal documents and as such are not binding. In other words they are meaningless and have no standing in International law
Of course they are legal documents you moron.
montelatici, et al,
This is a failure to understand what is means to say: "civil and religious rights."
(QUESTION)
What rights were violated?
Most Respectfully,
R
Obviously those of the Christians and Muslims. Being killed and having one's home/land stolen is a violation of civil rights you nutcase.
Notice how the unsupported BS from Phoney compares to my carefully annotated response:
Firstly. there were was no "Arab Muslim" organization. The organization that represented the Palestinians was made up of regional Muslim-Christian Organizations, that met periodically in a Palestine Arab Congress. These groups would select members of the Palestine Arab Delegations that would meet in London with the Mandatory as did the Zionist Organization, the other party in the political conflict.
Palestine Arab Congress - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Attacks on the Palestinians by the Zionists began well before the Mandate. As described by an early Zionist, Achad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg)
"The behaviour of settlers disturbed him. They had not learned from experience as a minority, but, like a slave who has become king, "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution".
David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian
The Zionists bullies continued this behavior towards the local people through the years of the Mandate and occasionally the local people rightfully reacted.
When the Palestine Arab Delegations would ask the British to stop the Zionist immigration to prevent the establishment (takeover) of their lands the British would respond telling the Christians and Muslims that they had nothing to worry about, that the Jews would work to help develop Palestine to the benefit of all its inhabitants. In fact, what the Christians and Muslims feared happened, the British were unable to or did not want to stop it and that is why we are in the situation we are in:
"6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—
" These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."
This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.
- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
1) what about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron
2) What about the Pact of Omar and the Dhimmi Laws
3) what do letters ( that is what correspondence means child ) have to do with factual data and International law
1. Many more Christians and Muslims were massacred by Jews up to the Hebron events, starting in the late 1800s. You can't go on killing people without a violent response.
2. What about the Pact of Umar? What does it have to do with Palestine?
3. The letters are factual and available from the UN archives to which I link to, and are far more reliable than the bullshit you make up that has no back up whatsoever you clown.
Notice how the unsupported BS from Phoney compares to my carefully annotated response:
Firstly. there were was no "Arab Muslim" organization. The organization that represented the Palestinians was made up of regional Muslim-Christian Organizations, that met periodically in a Palestine Arab Congress. These groups would select members of the Palestine Arab Delegations that would meet in London with the Mandatory as did the Zionist Organization, the other party in the political conflict.
Palestine Arab Congress - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Attacks on the Palestinians by the Zionists began well before the Mandate. As described by an early Zionist, Achad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg)
"The behaviour of settlers disturbed him. They had not learned from experience as a minority, but, like a slave who has become king, "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution".
David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian
The Zionists bullies continued this behavior towards the local people through the years of the Mandate and occasionally the local people rightfully reacted.
When the Palestine Arab Delegations would ask the British to stop the Zionist immigration to prevent the establishment (takeover) of their lands the British would respond telling the Christians and Muslims that they had nothing to worry about, that the Jews would work to help develop Palestine to the benefit of all its inhabitants. In fact, what the Christians and Muslims feared happened, the British were unable to or did not want to stop it and that is why we are in the situation we are in:
"6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—
" These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."
This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.
- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
1) what about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron
2) What about the Pact of Omar and the Dhimmi Laws
3) what do letters ( that is what correspondence means child ) have to do with factual data and International law
1. Many more Christians and Muslims were massacred by Jews up to the Hebron events, starting in the late 1800s. You can't go on killing people without a violent response.
2. What about the Pact of Umar? What does it have to do with Palestine?
3. The letters are factual and available from the UN archives to which I link to, and are far more reliable than the bullshit you make up that has no back up whatsoever you clown.
BULLSHIT over 3 million non muslims lost their lives to muslim murdering scum in the lands of Palestine
Everything as it was the law of Palestine right up until the LoN took over
They are not legal documents just letters between interested parties
Of course this is irrelevant to the root of the problem in 1947.P F Tinmore, et al,
This is looking at the problem with blinders on and no sense of the timeline.
(COMMENT)This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.
It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.
The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.
This is true. Israel was not defending itself from the Palestinians; they were not a party to the conflict in 1967. The were defending against a coordinated attack being set-up by the Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians. This is reflected in the post-Conflict Agreements. Hostile Arab Palestinians were originally stateless irregular forces of an asymmetric nature using insurgent and terrorist tactics.
Now they are a state that supports terrorism.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well actually before 1947.
Notice how the unsupported BS from Phoney compares to my carefully annotated response:
Firstly. there were was no "Arab Muslim" organization. The organization that represented the Palestinians was made up of regional Muslim-Christian Organizations, that met periodically in a Palestine Arab Congress. These groups would select members of the Palestine Arab Delegations that would meet in London with the Mandatory as did the Zionist Organization, the other party in the political conflict.
Palestine Arab Congress - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Attacks on the Palestinians by the Zionists began well before the Mandate. As described by an early Zionist, Achad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg)
"The behaviour of settlers disturbed him. They had not learned from experience as a minority, but, like a slave who has become king, "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution".
David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian
The Zionists bullies continued this behavior towards the local people through the years of the Mandate and occasionally the local people rightfully reacted.
When the Palestine Arab Delegations would ask the British to stop the Zionist immigration to prevent the establishment (takeover) of their lands the British would respond telling the Christians and Muslims that they had nothing to worry about, that the Jews would work to help develop Palestine to the benefit of all its inhabitants. In fact, what the Christians and Muslims feared happened, the British were unable to or did not want to stop it and that is why we are in the situation we are in:
"6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—
" These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."
This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.
- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
1) what about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron
2) What about the Pact of Omar and the Dhimmi Laws
3) what do letters ( that is what correspondence means child ) have to do with factual data and International law
1. Many more Christians and Muslims were massacred by Jews up to the Hebron events, starting in the late 1800s. You can't go on killing people without a violent response.
2. What about the Pact of Umar? What does it have to do with Palestine?
3. The letters are factual and available from the UN archives to which I link to, and are far more reliable than the bullshit you make up that has no back up whatsoever you clown.
BULLSHIT over 3 million non muslims lost their lives to muslim murdering scum in the lands of Palestine
Everything as it was the law of Palestine right up until the LoN took over
They are not legal documents just letters between interested parties
A letter written by a Government official in his/her official capacity as agent of the Government is a legal document you nut.
You just make up stories and bullshit, there is no backup to what you write. When were these non-Muslims "murdered" in the land of Palestine? During the Crusades when Saladin reconquered Jerusalem? When the Byzantine Romans ruled Palestine? When provide some reliable source material.
What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?P F Tinmore, et al,
These few rules don't really give much to the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.
(COMMENT)
The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?
It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.
Most Respectfully,
R
The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.
Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?
This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State
When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf
The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
The right to self determination without external interference.
The right to independence and sovereignty.
The right to territorial integrity.
The territory under consideration (later to be known as "The Mandate of Palestine") was transferred to the Allied Powers; not the people of Palestine. The "Successor Governments" were determined by the "Allied Powers" via the League of Nations and the subsequence United Nations. For the purposes of the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne, the issues of "Nationality" were actually addressed and predate the Treaty, in the "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." As the territorial Mandate of Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty, and no conflicts arise from the treaty, nothing in the treaty (having be written by the very same Allied Powers) grants the Palestinians anything not addressed by the Allied Powers; it changes nothing.
The foregoing addresses your four points. But it must be clear that nothing in the Declaration of Human Rights (A/RES/3/217 A - 1948) may be interpreted as implying that the Palestinian has any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of the Israeli people.
- The Allied Powers defined the territory. The Palestinians did NOT define the territory. Therefore, there is a conflict in the reasoning that the "Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory" - when --- if point of fact --- it was a territory defined by the Allied Powers.
- The dual rights of "independence and sovereignty" --- and --- "self determination without external interference" were exercised once in 1950 (when the Palestinians of the West Bank ascended to Jordanian sovereignty) and again in 1988 (when declared independence).
- The right to territorial integrity is undefined, as they have not formally established a Treaty with any other sovereign nation on the matter of permanent international boundaries. The recognition of the State of Palestine is provisionally based on the demarcation lines by the UN in the Affirmation in the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.
Key Facts as summarized by the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)(Sole Representative of the Palestinian People) said:SOURCE: Borders --- PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)
- The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
- A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
- The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
And I believe that you have consistently failed to recognize the evolution of the current dispute, and the focus of the differences. You cannot keep rolling back the clock to a time of your choosing. You have to deal within the parameters of the here and now; not what might have been or should have been. Any settlement of the disputes has to be in a much more real and recent context.
Most Respectfully,
R
Tell that to the Islamists who already own 99.94% of the middle east and tell them to knock off the land grabbing. Israel owns .06% of the middle east and she is there to stay and is not giving away one more inch. Tell them to back off because otherwise they will lose what they already have - they are not taking any more of Israel. That is over with.If humanity is so dumb that WW3 is fought because of a tiny 8,158 square miles of land then we deserve it.
Tell that to the Islamists who already own 99.94% of the middle east and tell them to knock off the land grabbing. Israel owns .06% of the middle east and she is there to stay and is not giving away one more inch. Tell them to back off because otherwise they will lose what they already have - they are not taking any more of Israel. That is over with.If humanity is so dumb that WW3 is fought because of a tiny 8,158 square miles of land then we deserve it.
Of course this is irrelevant to the root of the problem in 1947.P F Tinmore, et al,
This is looking at the problem with blinders on and no sense of the timeline.
(COMMENT)This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.
It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.
The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.
This is true. Israel was not defending itself from the Palestinians; they were not a party to the conflict in 1967. The were defending against a coordinated attack being set-up by the Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians. This is reflected in the post-Conflict Agreements. Hostile Arab Palestinians were originally stateless irregular forces of an asymmetric nature using insurgent and terrorist tactics.
Now they are a state that supports terrorism.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well actually before 1947.
But there was no such thing as a Palestinian in 1947. The Arabs never called themselves Palestinians until after Israel was reborn in 1948.
The greater Middle East isn't overly concerned with Israel's small territory. There's no oil, etc. However it is Israel that is doing the "land grabbing" or are you blind?Tell that to the Islamists who already own 99.94% of the middle east and tell them to knock off the land grabbing. Israel owns .06% of the middle east and she is there to stay and is not giving away one more inch. Tell them to back off because otherwise they will lose what they already have - they are not taking any more of Israel. That is over with.If humanity is so dumb that WW3 is fought because of a tiny 8,158 square miles of land then we deserve it.
Can't you be nice and not address me? I've told you I despise creepy Evangelists like you...I have often criticized Hamas and have posted that the leadership are War Criminals...And it wasn't Hamas that dropped those bombs on Gaza, it was Israeli cowardice because they are afraid to fight like men to eradicate them...What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?P F Tinmore, et al,
These few rules don't really give much to the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.
It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.
The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.
Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?
This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State
When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf
The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
The right to self determination without external interference.
The right to independence and sovereignty.
The right to territorial integrity.
The territory under consideration (later to be known as "The Mandate of Palestine") was transferred to the Allied Powers; not the people of Palestine. The "Successor Governments" were determined by the "Allied Powers" via the League of Nations and the subsequence United Nations. For the purposes of the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne, the issues of "Nationality" were actually addressed and predate the Treaty, in the "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." As the territorial Mandate of Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty, and no conflicts arise from the treaty, nothing in the treaty (having be written by the very same Allied Powers) grants the Palestinians anything not addressed by the Allied Powers; it changes nothing.
The foregoing addresses your four points. But it must be clear that nothing in the Declaration of Human Rights (A/RES/3/217 A - 1948) may be interpreted as implying that the Palestinian has any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of the Israeli people.
- The Allied Powers defined the territory. The Palestinians did NOT define the territory. Therefore, there is a conflict in the reasoning that the "Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory" - when --- if point of fact --- it was a territory defined by the Allied Powers.
- The dual rights of "independence and sovereignty" --- and --- "self determination without external interference" were exercised once in 1950 (when the Palestinians of the West Bank ascended to Jordanian sovereignty) and again in 1988 (when declared independence).
- The right to territorial integrity is undefined, as they have not formally established a Treaty with any other sovereign nation on the matter of permanent international boundaries. The recognition of the State of Palestine is provisionally based on the demarcation lines by the UN in the Affirmation in the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.
Key Facts as summarized by the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)(Sole Representative of the Palestinian People) said:SOURCE: Borders --- PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)
- The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
- A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
- The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
And I believe that you have consistently failed to recognize the evolution of the current dispute, and the focus of the differences. You cannot keep rolling back the clock to a time of your choosing. You have to deal within the parameters of the here and now; not what might have been or should have been. Any settlement of the disputes has to be in a much more real and recent context.
Most Respectfully,
R
I believe RoccoR already established earlier that he was not a zionist but I can see where you'd be grasping at anything to sidestep the issue here because he has done an excellent job of exposing these lies about land grabs, what a terrorist group is and such. Which reminds me, Pbels. Why haven't I heard you condemn Hamas for the loss of life in Gaza? Why have you not been openly condemning this terrorist group for the many deaths they have caused? Do you support terrorist groups like Hamas and ISIS? What is up with that and what kind of an individual would stand behind terrorist groups that are causing the deaths of innocent people? How can you live with that? How can you live with yourself?
But of course, they didn't!Of course they called themselves Palestinians, ...
"Israel grabbing greater middle east" drivel.The greater Middle East isn't overly concerned with Israel's small territory. There's no oil, etc. However it is Israel that is doing the "land grabbing" or are you blind?
