Can Palestinian's and Israeli's ever be friends?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN did not "abandon" General Assembly Resolution 181(II)

P F Tinmore, et al,

HAMAS is a product, not of Israeli Policy, but a resulting consequences of Palestinian politico-military actions.

Hamas is a product of Israeli policies.

(COMMENT)

When HAMAS (AUG 1988) was born, the month before the State of Palestine (NOV 1988) was declared. The basic content and position of HAMAS has not changed since it was first formally articulated in A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948. In the basic threat issued by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), it is really the foundational content of the the 1988 Covenant. Take the basic points outline in the AHC Threat Letter, and wrap them around fundamentalist Islamic Radical Rhetoric, and you have most of the HAMAS Covenant. And those fundamentals are merely updated and polished a little more in the Political Bureau, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Principle Position Paper of 2012.

In August 1988, when HAMAS published the Covenant, there was no Palestinian Territory in Occupation. It was formerly Jordanian Territory which had been severed and abandoned from the nation by Royal Decree.

What we all observe today, is a consequence of the Israeli necessity for a security deterrent against Palestinian Jihadist and Insurgents.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. It is a good read.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

It explains why the UN abandoned resolution 181.

BTW, the rest of your post is a pantload.

(COMMENT)

I know that you want people to believe that, but it is simply not true. One of the more relevant example is:

• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947," used in the 2012 Resolution on the Status of Palestine.
• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, in the 1998 Resolution on the Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations.

But even the Arab Palestinians recognize it:

• "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process." Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General."

I know that it is an inconvenient truth, yet one that demonstrates how confused and segmented the Arab Palestinians are on the issues.

PS: What in Post #44 was inaccurate???

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cut'n'paste well. But do you know what it means and how to apply it?

And what " peremptory norm of general international law " does Oslo conflict with. Give the law and its date of implementation and how Oslo applies ?
Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

The civilian population is in a tense and vulnerable position. The law
states that it must be humanely treated in all circumstances and pro-
tected from any acts of violence, including by third parties. The occupying
power may only put in place such measures of control and security as
may be necessary as a result of the conflict. Collective penalties, measures
of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords are in no way preempting the application of something otherwise legal. What the passage on the concept of a " peremptory norm of general international law " is trying to convey --- is that you cannot (for example) you cannot enforce a contract (the legal instrument) to murder, since murder is always illegal.

Now you might have a case for the exploitation of the influence held by an Occupation Power. But even that is estranged from the truth. Yes, the Oslo Accord I (1993)(Declaration of Principles (DoP) on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) where were put together by Ron Pundak (Israeli), who just passed away in the last year. In diplomatic circles, he was known as the "Warrior for Peace." Pundak was the General Director of an NGO known as the Peres Center for Peace, from 2001 to 2012, focused on improving relations between Israelis and Palestinians. While the DoP was a product of an Israeli, the negotiation effort was not one of coercive atmosphere. The DoP was more than just a framework for the agreements. In it Israel accepted the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Now there were then, as there has been since 1948, very powerful and influential Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, that focus all their efforts into derailing any mutual agreement between the two belligerents, that would lead to peace. These same powerful and influential Arab interests and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force that which has been made so far and any attempt to make a reasonable effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement in the future. HAMAS is just but one such force, using asymmetric warfare to achieve their political ends that have otherwise been out of reach.

I understand that there are some Arab Palestinians that periodically reaffirm here that the Arab Palestine will not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Mandate of Palestine, and Resolution 181(II), or any outcome that is derived from them. But this again, is the obstinacy of the Arab Palestinian people that want to undermine the decisions made by the Council of the League, the Allied Powers, and the General Assembly. They want to use complaints and conflict, instigated by there own hand, to coerce and pressure set the conditions for ever more fruitless conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand that there are some Arab Palestinians that periodically reaffirm here that the Arab Palestine will not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Mandate of Palestine, and Resolution 181(II), or any outcome that is derived from them.​

And that was one of the biggest successes for the Palestinians. None of those were successful in creating a Jewish state. When the Mandate left Palestine there was nothing legitimate for the Zionists to hang their hat on.

No government was established by the Mandate. Israel had acquired no land from any of those previous activities. No borders were defined. No legitimacy for a Jewish state had been established. There was a lot of talk but all actions had failed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN did not "abandon" General Assembly Resolution 181(II)

P F Tinmore, et al,

HAMAS is a product, not of Israeli Policy, but a resulting consequences of Palestinian politico-military actions.

Hamas is a product of Israeli policies.

(COMMENT)

When HAMAS (AUG 1988) was born, the month before the State of Palestine (NOV 1988) was declared. The basic content and position of HAMAS has not changed since it was first formally articulated in A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948. In the basic threat issued by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), it is really the foundational content of the the 1988 Covenant. Take the basic points outline in the AHC Threat Letter, and wrap them around fundamentalist Islamic Radical Rhetoric, and you have most of the HAMAS Covenant. And those fundamentals are merely updated and polished a little more in the Political Bureau, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Principle Position Paper of 2012.

In August 1988, when HAMAS published the Covenant, there was no Palestinian Territory in Occupation. It was formerly Jordanian Territory which had been severed and abandoned from the nation by Royal Decree.

What we all observe today, is a consequence of the Israeli necessity for a security deterrent against Palestinian Jihadist and Insurgents.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. It is a good read.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

It explains why the UN abandoned resolution 181.

BTW, the rest of your post is a pantload.

(COMMENT)

I know that you want people to believe that, but it is simply not true. One of the more relevant example is:

• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947," used in the 2012 Resolution on the Status of Palestine.
• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, in the 1998 Resolution on the Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations.

But even the Arab Palestinians recognize it:

• "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process." Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General."

I know that it is an inconvenient truth, yet one that demonstrates how confused and segmented the Arab Palestinians are on the issues.

PS: What in Post #44 was inaccurate???

Most Respectfully,
R

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.
------------
You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

More blood libels, ridiculous parroting...

You know, I couldn't give a shit what labels you want to put on things, we both know the reason you do it, is because you're too pussy to be a responsible adult.

1. Arabs from Syria, Egypt and Saudi occupied the land of Israel.

We're not talking about them. We're talking about the indigenous, non-Jewish population, that has lived in that area for over 2000 years.

2.The blockade was the result of suicide bombings, and was implemented by Egypt too quiet successfully. It's the decision of Hamas and their electors-the balestinians who gave their children the explosive vests.

Wrong! The blockade started because Israel didn't like the results of a fair and democratic election, which BTW, was none of their god-damn business!

3. When saying "you have done", do You mean just me, all the jews or Israeli citizens all-together?

Israeli citizens all-together. You're responsible for everything your government does. Just like I am with mine.

I have been against the Iraq war from day one, but that doesn't change the fact that, as an American citizen, I am responsible for the death and destruction that were caused by our illegal and immoral invasion of that country.

4. What about owning Your decision to support a terrorist organization which steals UN aid meant for Gazans and WB citizens?

I don't support anything on that side of the planet. Fuck Hamas and fuck Israel! Fuck both of them and fuck you! I could care less about either side. I just don't like someone looking me in the eye and trying to tell me, "the emperor has new clothes". And that's what you're doing.

 

[Billo_Really]

Jews would be free once they all remembered their ancestors and the elders and prosper even more. That's the sole purpose of Israel today.

And to think you accuse Muslims of living in the 7th century?

The freedom You're talking about is sold in Europe under the guise of "rights"...Israel seems to know the game of ME better.

Where it deny's the rights of others.

 

[Billo_Really]

Jewish don't anything they are brain wash by their elders.

Not all Jews. Israel is losing a lot of their younger Jewish population, because they don't want to be associated with what their government is doing. And as time goes on, more and more of the Jewish population around the world, is starting to speak out against the foreign policies of the Israeli government. Groups like Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) and Rabbi's for Human Rights, are two that comes to mind.

But getting back to your comment, "...they are brain wash by their elders...", makes me think, in contrast, the comments of the Iranian population (who 70% of them are under the age of 30), say they can't wait for their elders to die off. I remember when I was in my 20's, I didn't listen to anyone over 30.

Without getting too far off topic, this is the Iran today, which looks the same as spring break in Panama City.

 

[Billo_Really]

Correct I am not Jewish but I support and defend their right to defend themselves from attacks and terrorism. Just as I support and defend the people of Syria's right to defend against attack and terrorism.

So you are officially stating your support for the Assad government?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

First, borders do not require a treaty.​

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.​

They had no sovereignty over territory 20 years ago but they signed Oslo.

They have no sovereignty over territory now but they are negotiating a treaty now including borders.

They had no sovereignty over the West Bank but they could authorize their annexation to Jordan.

They had no sovereignty in 1948 so their declaration of independence was invalid.

They had no sovereignty in 1988 yet their declaration of independence was valid.

 

[Phoenall]

The Geneva conventions of course, that you seem to have a problem in understanding when they support Israeli actions.

You mean this....

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies."

The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice.

The Israeli Supreme Court "The general point of departure of all parties - which is also our point of departure - is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica)."

Only if he did say what your source claims, if it was something else or it has been subject to literary licence then it is not valid.

Do you have an unbiased link to suggested that he DIDN'T say it?

Which it hasn't and you have been unable to prove they have, The people moved back to their property stolen in 1949 as is their legal right. Then there is Oslo which granted Israel the legal right to settle the land so article 49 does not apply.

No do you have an unbiased link to say he did ?

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

http://www.treatylaw.org/vienna-con...ns-international-organizations/#_Toc253643621​

And what " peremptory norm of general international law " does Oslo conflict with. Give the law and its date of implementation and how Oslo applies ?

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

The civilian population is in a tense and vulnerable position. The law
states that it must be humanely treated in all circumstances and pro-
tected from any acts of violence, including by third parties. The occupying
power may only put in place such measures of control and security as
may be necessary as a result of the conflict. Collective penalties, measures
of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

As I said what " peremptory norm of general international law " does Oslo conflict with. Give the law and its date of implementation and how Oslo applies


But looking at your link we find this


After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation. If they do so, they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or on the basis of GP I, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments.
Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status

Which the Palestinians are in breach of so they are valid targets while doing so.


Then this which covers the settlements in part


REQUISITION OF CIVILIAN RESOURCES AND SERVICES
Civilian resources and services may be requisitioned in occupied territory in accordance with strict rules. They must only be requisitioned if they are needed by the armed forces of occupation or public utility services, or to feed, shelter, clothe, transport or care for the population of the occupied country, and then only if they are indispensable for these purposes. In addition, foodstuffs, general articles and medical supplies may not be requisitioned unless the requirements of the civilian population have been adequately met. This is logical since under the law the occupying power is obliged to guarantee that the occupied territory is provided with foodstuffs and medical supplies.


This

REQUISITION/SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
The law of occupation is very detailed about the requisitioning/seizure of government, military and private property. The main points are discussed below.
Movable government property that can be used for military purposes becomes spoils of war. It can be freely seized by the occupying power, whose property it becomes without the need for compensation. Such property includes, for example, cash, other financial assets, realizable securities, all military equipment, and means of military transport.
Fixed government property such as telecommunication and transportation systems (railways, public transport, airlines) may be seized. They must be restored and compensation paid when peace is made.
The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings, real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.
Fixed government property should be managed and maintained by the occupying power. The proceeds may be used only for the administration of the occupied territory.
Private property cannot be confiscated. An exception is made for items that can be used for military purposes, commodities designed for consumption, and businesses such as airlines, railways, road transport networks and telecommunications. After the conflict has ended, seized property of this type must be returned and, if appropriate, compensation paid.

Destruction of property. The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.


Now when has Israel
The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

As the people migrated themselves to land that was theirs.

But once again you deflect from the question asked and give a totally wrong answer because you know the Israeli's have done nothing wrong.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

HAMAS is a product, not of Israeli Policy, but a resulting consequences of Palestinian politico-military actions.

Hamas is a product of Israeli policies.

(COMMENT)

When HAMAS (AUG 1988) was born, the month before the State of Palestine (NOV 1988) was declared. The basic content and position of HAMAS has not changed since it was first formally articulated in A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948. In the basic threat issued by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), it is really the foundational content of the the 1988 Covenant. Take the basic points outline in the AHC Threat Letter, and wrap them around fundamentalist Islamic Radical Rhetoric, and you have most of the HAMAS Covenant. And those fundamentals are merely updated and polished a little more in the Political Bureau, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Principle Position Paper of 2012.

In August 1988, when HAMAS published the Covenant, there was no Palestinian Territory in Occupation. It was formerly Jordanian Territory which had been severed and abandoned from the nation by Royal Decree.

What we all observe today, is a consequence of the Israeli necessity for a security deterrent against Palestinian Jihadist and Insurgents.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. It is a good read.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

It explains why the UN abandoned resolution 181.

BTW, the rest of your post is a pantload.

How so when it was debated 3 months before the British left Palestine and 2 years before the UN accepted 181 as being fulfilled in part. Guess you are clutching at straws

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

First, borders do not require a treaty.​

Link?

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967


This calls for the negotiations of mutual borders, which has been done with 3 of the 5 nations involved, only Syria and Lebanon have not agreed mutual borders yet.


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.​

They had no sovereignty over territory 20 years ago but they signed Oslo.

They have no sovereignty over territory now but they are negotiating a treaty now including borders.

They had no sovereignty over the West Bank but they could authorize their annexation to Jordan.

They had no sovereignty in 1948 so their declaration of independence was invalid.

They had no sovereignty in 1988 yet their declaration of independence was valid.

By declaring independence they had accepted sovereignty in 1988. they just refused to act on this aspect

See above and read their declaration.

Correct as they refused to do so until 1988

Correct as they refused to do so until 1988

Wrong as they declared their sovereignty then for all the world to see, they just refused to act on it


Palestinian Declaration of Independence - 1988



And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory,

The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

First, borders do not require a treaty.​

Link?

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967


This calls for the negotiations of mutual borders, which has been done with 3 of the 5 nations involved, only Syria and Lebanon have not agreed mutual borders yet.


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Lebanon had borders. Syria had borders. Jordan had borders. Egypt had borders. Palestine had borders. All of them undisputed.

What was there to negotiate?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cut'n'paste well. But do you know what it means and how to apply it?

And what " peremptory norm of general international law " does Oslo conflict with. Give the law and its date of implementation and how Oslo applies ?
Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

The civilian population is in a tense and vulnerable position. The law
states that it must be humanely treated in all circumstances and pro-
tected from any acts of violence, including by third parties. The occupying
power may only put in place such measures of control and security as
may be necessary as a result of the conflict. Collective penalties, measures
of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords are in no way preempting the application of something otherwise legal. What the passage on the concept of a " peremptory norm of general international law " is trying to convey --- is that you cannot (for example) you cannot enforce a contract (the legal instrument) to murder, since murder is always illegal.

Now you might have a case for the exploitation of the influence held by an Occupation Power. But even that is estranged from the truth. Yes, the Oslo Accord I (1993)(Declaration of Principles (DoP) on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) where were put together by Ron Pundak (Israeli), who just passed away in the last year. In diplomatic circles, he was known as the "Warrior for Peace." Pundak was the General Director of an NGO known as the Peres Center for Peace, from 2001 to 2012, focused on improving relations between Israelis and Palestinians. While the DoP was a product of an Israeli, the negotiation effort was not one of coercive atmosphere. The DoP was more than just a framework for the agreements. In it Israel accepted the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Now there were then, as there has been since 1948, very powerful and influential Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, that focus all their efforts into derailing any mutual agreement between the two belligerents, that would lead to peace. These same powerful and influential Arab interests and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force that which has been made so far and any attempt to make a reasonable effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement in the future. HAMAS is just but one such force, using asymmetric warfare to achieve their political ends that have otherwise been out of reach.

I understand that there are some Arab Palestinians that periodically reaffirm here that the Arab Palestine will not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Mandate of Palestine, and Resolution 181(II), or any outcome that is derived from them. But this again, is the obstinacy of the Arab Palestinian people that want to undermine the decisions made by the Council of the League, the Allied Powers, and the General Assembly. They want to use complaints and conflict, instigated by there own hand, to coerce and pressure set the conditions for ever more fruitless conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand that there are some Arab Palestinians that periodically reaffirm here that the Arab Palestine will not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Mandate of Palestine, and Resolution 181(II), or any outcome that is derived from them.​

And that was one of the biggest successes for the Palestinians. None of those were successful in creating a Jewish state. When the Mandate left Palestine there was nothing legitimate for the Zionists to hang their hat on.

No government was established by the Mandate. Israel had acquired no land from any of those previous activities. No borders were defined. No legitimacy for a Jewish state had been established. There was a lot of talk but all actions had failed.

Once again you make your false claims without any support from any sources, not even biased partisan islamonazi ones.

The Mandate was successful in creating a Jewish state as it enabled the Jews to declare independence of the mandate in 1948. Resolution 181 accepted the Jewish declaration and instituted the nation by UN resolution in 1949. The mandate having been taken over by the UN did establish the Jewish government and gave the nation of Israel legitimacy.
The mandate of Palestine defined the borders of arab Palestine ( trans Jordan ) and Jewish Palestine ( Israel, gaaza, west bank, Jerusalem and the Golan heights ) and these are the International borders as agreed by the LoN in 1923. There was no nation of Palestine prior to 1988

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN did not "abandon" General Assembly Resolution 181(II)

P F Tinmore, et al,

HAMAS is a product, not of Israeli Policy, but a resulting consequences of Palestinian politico-military actions.

Hamas is a product of Israeli policies.

(COMMENT)

When HAMAS (AUG 1988) was born, the month before the State of Palestine (NOV 1988) was declared. The basic content and position of HAMAS has not changed since it was first formally articulated in A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948. In the basic threat issued by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), it is really the foundational content of the the 1988 Covenant. Take the basic points outline in the AHC Threat Letter, and wrap them around fundamentalist Islamic Radical Rhetoric, and you have most of the HAMAS Covenant. And those fundamentals are merely updated and polished a little more in the Political Bureau, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Principle Position Paper of 2012.

In August 1988, when HAMAS published the Covenant, there was no Palestinian Territory in Occupation. It was formerly Jordanian Territory which had been severed and abandoned from the nation by Royal Decree.

What we all observe today, is a consequence of the Israeli necessity for a security deterrent against Palestinian Jihadist and Insurgents.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. It is a good read.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

It explains why the UN abandoned resolution 181.

BTW, the rest of your post is a pantload.

(COMMENT)

I know that you want people to believe that, but it is simply not true. One of the more relevant example is:

• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947," used in the 2012 Resolution on the Status of Palestine.
• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, in the 1998 Resolution on the Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations.

But even the Arab Palestinians recognize it:

• "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process." Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General."

I know that it is an inconvenient truth, yet one that demonstrates how confused and segmented the Arab Palestinians are on the issues.

PS: What in Post #44 was inaccurate???

Most Respectfully,
R

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.
------------
You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

Not if the inhabitants agree to accept the annexation and become nationals of that nation

Now when did this become International law, and provide a proper link not some classroom study piece that is neither use nor ornament.

By the way just because you say something does mean it is true, as you have been shown many times in the past.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cut'n'paste well. But do you know what it means and how to apply it?

And what " peremptory norm of general international law " does Oslo conflict with. Give the law and its date of implementation and how Oslo applies ?
Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

The civilian population is in a tense and vulnerable position. The law
states that it must be humanely treated in all circumstances and pro-
tected from any acts of violence, including by third parties. The occupying
power may only put in place such measures of control and security as
may be necessary as a result of the conflict. Collective penalties, measures
of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords are in no way preempting the application of something otherwise legal. What the passage on the concept of a " peremptory norm of general international law " is trying to convey --- is that you cannot (for example) you cannot enforce a contract (the legal instrument) to murder, since murder is always illegal.

Now you might have a case for the exploitation of the influence held by an Occupation Power. But even that is estranged from the truth. Yes, the Oslo Accord I (1993)(Declaration of Principles (DoP) on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) where were put together by Ron Pundak (Israeli), who just passed away in the last year. In diplomatic circles, he was known as the "Warrior for Peace." Pundak was the General Director of an NGO known as the Peres Center for Peace, from 2001 to 2012, focused on improving relations between Israelis and Palestinians. While the DoP was a product of an Israeli, the negotiation effort was not one of coercive atmosphere. The DoP was more than just a framework for the agreements. In it Israel accepted the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Now there were then, as there has been since 1948, very powerful and influential Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, that focus all their efforts into derailing any mutual agreement between the two belligerents, that would lead to peace. These same powerful and influential Arab interests and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force that which has been made so far and any attempt to make a reasonable effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement in the future. HAMAS is just but one such force, using asymmetric warfare to achieve their political ends that have otherwise been out of reach.

I understand that there are some Arab Palestinians that periodically reaffirm here that the Arab Palestine will not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Mandate of Palestine, and Resolution 181(II), or any outcome that is derived from them. But this again, is the obstinacy of the Arab Palestinian people that want to undermine the decisions made by the Council of the League, the Allied Powers, and the General Assembly. They want to use complaints and conflict, instigated by there own hand, to coerce and pressure set the conditions for ever more fruitless conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand that there are some Arab Palestinians that periodically reaffirm here that the Arab Palestine will not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Mandate of Palestine, and Resolution 181(II), or any outcome that is derived from them.​

And that was one of the biggest successes for the Palestinians. None of those were successful in creating a Jewish state. When the Mandate left Palestine there was nothing legitimate for the Zionists to hang their hat on.

No government was established by the Mandate. Israel had acquired no land from any of those previous activities. No borders were defined. No legitimacy for a Jewish state had been established. There was a lot of talk but all actions had failed.

Once again you make your false claims without any support from any sources, not even biased partisan islamonazi ones.

The Mandate was successful in creating a Jewish state as it enabled the Jews to declare independence of the mandate in 1948. Resolution 181 accepted the Jewish declaration and instituted the nation by UN resolution in 1949. The mandate having been taken over by the UN did establish the Jewish government and gave the nation of Israel legitimacy.
The mandate of Palestine defined the borders of arab Palestine ( trans Jordan ) and Jewish Palestine ( Israel, gaaza, west bank, Jerusalem and the Golan heights ) and these are the International borders as agreed by the LoN in 1923. There was no nation of Palestine prior to 1988

So you are saying the the Palestinians declared a state in 1988 on land that was given to the Jews in 1923?

You don't make any sense.

 

[Phoenall]

More blood libels, ridiculous parroting...

You know, I couldn't give a shit what labels you want to put on things, we both know the reason you do it, is because you're too pussy to be a responsible adult.

1. Arabs from Syria, Egypt and Saudi occupied the land of Israel.

We're not talking about them. We're talking about the indigenous, non-Jewish population, that has lived in that area for over 2000 years.

2.The blockade was the result of suicide bombings, and was implemented by Egypt too quiet successfully. It's the decision of Hamas and their electors-the balestinians who gave their children the explosive vests.

Wrong! The blockade started because Israel didn't like the results of a fair and democratic election, which BTW, was none of their god-damn business!

3. When saying "you have done", do You mean just me, all the jews or Israeli citizens all-together?

Israeli citizens all-together. You're responsible for everything your government does. Just like I am with mine.

I have been against the Iraq war from day one, but that doesn't change the fact that, as an American citizen, I am responsible for the death and destruction that were caused by our illegal and immoral invasion of that country.

4. What about owning Your decision to support a terrorist organization which steals UN aid meant for Gazans and WB citizens?

I don't support anything on that side of the planet. Fuck Hamas and fuck Israel! Fuck both of them and fuck you! I could care less about either side. I just don't like someone looking me in the eye and trying to tell me, "the emperor has new clothes". And that's what you're doing.

That would be you then

No they moved into the area sometime in the 19C after the Ottomans invited European Jews to own and work the land. No arab muslim existed until 625CE, and they were evicted from Palestine in 1099 never to return until the mid 1800's.

Wrong as the blockade was in place before the elections and was caused by the arab muslims violence and terrorism, it was increased in 2007 when hamas started their violence and terrorism. By your criteria what happens in Palestine is none of your business either is it ?

So you are responcible for some of the worst atrocities in recent years including Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea.


And you are not seeing them are you, but still supporting terrorism and child murder because you are nothing more than a NAZI JEW HATER.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN did not "abandon" General Assembly Resolution 181(II)

P F Tinmore, et al,

HAMAS is a product, not of Israeli Policy, but a resulting consequences of Palestinian politico-military actions.

Hamas is a product of Israeli policies.

(COMMENT)

When HAMAS (AUG 1988) was born, the month before the State of Palestine (NOV 1988) was declared. The basic content and position of HAMAS has not changed since it was first formally articulated in A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948. In the basic threat issued by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), it is really the foundational content of the the 1988 Covenant. Take the basic points outline in the AHC Threat Letter, and wrap them around fundamentalist Islamic Radical Rhetoric, and you have most of the HAMAS Covenant. And those fundamentals are merely updated and polished a little more in the Political Bureau, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Principle Position Paper of 2012.

In August 1988, when HAMAS published the Covenant, there was no Palestinian Territory in Occupation. It was formerly Jordanian Territory which had been severed and abandoned from the nation by Royal Decree.

What we all observe today, is a consequence of the Israeli necessity for a security deterrent against Palestinian Jihadist and Insurgents.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. It is a good read.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

It explains why the UN abandoned resolution 181.

BTW, the rest of your post is a pantload.

(COMMENT)

I know that you want people to believe that, but it is simply not true. One of the more relevant example is:

• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947," used in the 2012 Resolution on the Status of Palestine.
• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, in the 1998 Resolution on the Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations.

But even the Arab Palestinians recognize it:

• "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process." Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General."

I know that it is an inconvenient truth, yet one that demonstrates how confused and segmented the Arab Palestinians are on the issues.

PS: What in Post #44 was inaccurate???

Most Respectfully,
R

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.
------------
You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

Not if the inhabitants agree to accept the annexation and become nationals of that nation

Now when did this become International law, and provide a proper link not some classroom study piece that is neither use nor ornament.

By the way just because you say something does mean it is true, as you have been shown many times in the past.

Not if the inhabitants agree to accept the annexation and become nationals of that nation​

So the people have the sovereignty over their land even though they do not have an independent state.

That's good to know.