- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,665
- 4,167
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #561
What does that have to do with my post?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,665
- 4,167
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #562
The Palestinians or the US paid oligarchs in Ramallah?sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, you are not listening.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)
So true, however, it was relatively stable and peaceful during the Ottoman period. When Palestine was carved out after WWI, all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens. There is no evidence that that amicable relationship would not continue.
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)Then Britain landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket and fucked everything up big time. There has been nothing but death and destruction since.
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?
The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.
Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.
Most Respectfully,
R
That does not look correct.
...before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.
FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation. But it wasn’t the first illegitimate occupation.
That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.
Occupation of Palestine started in 1948
...and Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in 1948 occupied Palestine...
1948 Internally Displaced Persons Palestinians
The 69-page book explores the emergence of these parties and their programs and their influence in the political life of the Palestinians in the 1948 occupied territories.
Al-Zaytouna Centre - Information Report 25 Arab Parties in 1948 Occupied Palestine in Israel
"That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day."
In your dreams moron. Even the Palestinians recognize that territory as being Israel's. What the fuck is wrong with you? You have got to be the most unaware poster concerning this conflict.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,665
- 4,167
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #563
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times,...
So true, however, it was relatively stable and peaceful during the Ottoman period. When Palestine was carved out after WWI, all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens. There is no evidence that that amicable relationship would not continue.
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)Then Britain landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket and fucked everything up big time. There has been nothing but death and destruction since.
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take.
Then Britain came by catering to the agenda of foreigners and fucked that up. There has been nothing but death and destruction ever since. Britain took the low road.
LINK ?
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,665
- 4,167
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #564
Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times,...
So true, however, it was relatively stable and peaceful during the Ottoman period. When Palestine was carved out after WWI, all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens. There is no evidence that that amicable relationship would not continue.
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)Then Britain landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket and fucked everything up big time. There has been nothing but death and destruction since.
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
REvery day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
You forgot to mention inside Palestine.
And you refuse to give it it's full title MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. Why is that ?
It had no land or borders.
It's not Israel claiming the borders. IT's not Palestinian land. You're on another planet.Israel claims borders on Palestinian land.Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, you are not listening.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?
The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.
Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.
Most Respectfully,
R
You have that backwards.
Palestine has international borders.
Israel is defined by armistice lines.
Then you base the rest of your post of false premise.
No, YOU have that wrong. Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. That's just a fact. There's no going around that.
"Then you base the rest of your post of false premise"
This is what you post when you have no rebuttal. What exactly did he post that was based on false premise?
Interesting legal concept.
Not to mention you have ZERO proof for your assertion , as usual.
What proof do you have for what you say?sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, you are not listening.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?
The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.
Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.
Most Respectfully,
R
That does not look correct.
...before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.
FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation. But it wasn’t the first illegitimate occupation.
That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.
Occupation of Palestine started in 1948
...and Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in 1948 occupied Palestine...
1948 Internally Displaced Persons Palestinians
The 69-page book explores the emergence of these parties and their programs and their influence in the political life of the Palestinians in the 1948 occupied territories.
Al-Zaytouna Centre - Information Report 25 Arab Parties in 1948 Occupied Palestine in Israel
How about some proper sources and not looney left pro islam ones.
Workers world a communist source for starters
Badil is pallywood productions
Same with Al-Zaytouna
What does that have to do with my post?sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, you are not listening.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?
The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.
Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.
Most Respectfully,
R
That does not look correct.
...before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.
FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation. But it wasn’t the first illegitimate occupation.
That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.
Occupation of Palestine started in 1948
...and Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in 1948 occupied Palestine...
1948 Internally Displaced Persons Palestinians
The 69-page book explores the emergence of these parties and their programs and their influence in the political life of the Palestinians in the 1948 occupied territories.
Al-Zaytouna Centre - Information Report 25 Arab Parties in 1948 Occupied Palestine in Israel
"The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine"
If this is true, then why did Israel give back the Sinai in 1979 (they actually offered to give it back following the sic day war, but Egypt signed the Khartoum Resolution", offer to give back the Golan for a peace treaty (Syria also signed the Khartoum Resolution) and have offered to give up virtually the entire West Bank for a peace offer with the Palestinians (who have refused every one) ?
The answer is because the 'Zionist colonial project' is pure 100% Palestinian propaganda. It's simply not true.
Wow, must EVERYTHING be explained to you?? I just explained to you why you 'Zionist Colonial' crap is pure bullshit.
You, yourself have attempted to justify that the Arab Palestinian has the right to attack civilian Israeli objects; to use any and all means including terrorism.P F Tinmore, et al,
You, yourself have attempted to justify that the Arab Palestinian has the right to attack civilian Israeli objects; to use any and all means including terrorism.
Posting #156 in which you try to argue that it is OK (not a crime) for Palestinians to Kill members of the Occupying Power because it is not a crime ("The nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons."). What you did not tell them is that a Palestinian who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, or a grave collective danger, or seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, or is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, IS punishable under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is very similar to the justification you used (Post #99) to defend the use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.
Another one of my favorites is Posting #29 wherein you argue that HAMAS cannot be a terrorist organization ("whole terrorist name calling thing is a load of horse crap") because "Hamas does not fight outside its own territory and does not attack protected persons." This suggests that Israel is not sovereign and that attacks on Israel are purely domestic (contained within a Palestinian State); (you argument being that "HAMAS does not operate outside of Palestine") so "How is that international?" (Post #40) Talk about a bunch of crap.
(OBSERVATION)Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas.
Do have links to that crap?
Watch: Hamas Official Heaps Praise on 'Heroic' Kidnap Operation
Hamas 'political bureau' official Muhammad Nazal, hails abduction of three Israeli teenagers as a 'milestone in the Palestinian struggle'.
Netanyahu: Mashal made it clear Hamas was committed to fighting Israel
Prime minister addresses Abbas condemnation of kidnapping for the first time, saying if the PA president really means them, he is obligated to end his pact with Hamas.
Hamas Calls Special Press Conference, Says Nothing Important
Hamas (Hamas senior official, Salah Bardawil) claims they didnt kidnap the boys, but they praise whoever did.
(COMMENT)
As I've said before, one of the many faces of Arab Palestinian terrorism is the use of violent acts intended to create and instill fear in the mind of non-combatants (civilians), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; which deliberately target of non-combatants. Which is not only advocating the attack on civilians in violation of Rule #6 (Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.) of Customary IHL and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to Part IV : Civilian population #Section I -- General protection against effects of hostilities.
In an article published July 16, 2013, a Senior Hamas Official, Dr 'Issam Adwan, former Minister of Palestinian Refugee Affairs, stated that the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) Is Entitled To Attack:
They glorify the Jihadist and Fedayeen that engage and kill civilian non-combatants.
- Israel's Embassies,
- Israeli Interests,
- Israeli Officials Worldwide –
- The Interests of Israeli Allies, supporting the US
- (And of course) US interests.
Now, you are not going to tell me that you did not know that Palestinians killed half the Israeli Olympic Team in Munich; of when they hijacked El Al Flight 426 (1968), Dawson's Field Hijackings (1970), Air France Flight 139 (1976), Lufthansa Flight 181 (1977), TWA Flight 847 (1985), EgyptAir Flight 648 (1985), and Pan Am Flight 73 (1986). Or who remembers when the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt. And just how many rocket and mortars have the Palestinians fired (18,928 Rocket & Mortar attacks between 2001-2014)?
And there just isn't enough space here for me to append the charts for all the bombings:
And these are actions and not words. The language of the Hostile Arab Palestinian has not changed since 1948. The tone is just updated. Even as we speak, they boast about reconstructing tunnels into Israeli sovereignty.
- 2001 (40 bombings)
- 2002 (47 bombings)
- 2003 (23 bombings)
- 2004 (17 bombings)
- 2005 (9 bombings)
I think this makes my point that there are plenty of "LINKS" out there that demonstrate you perspective as well as how the Palestine both dramatize and demonstrate their position on advocating violence and attempting to present that they have some special dispensation to attack both civilians and the Occupation Force.
- HAMAS using Heavy Machinery to accelerate Attack Tunnels
- Business Insider
Hamas has begun using heavy machinery and engineering tools to accelerate the excavation of attack tunnels leading from the Gaza Strip under the Israeli border, sources in the Palestinian enclave told the Times of Israel Wednesday.
- APR. 15, 2015,
Most Respectfully,
R
It is Israel's war against the civilian Palestinian people. It can end the war any time it wants.
Why do they whine about a few casualties?
Then produce the posts
No it is against terrorists and militia, you have failed to prove that any of the dead were civilians.
Why do the arab muslims do the same when most are involved in the terror attacks on Israel
Oh, the little jerk-off pre-teen just realized he put his foot in his mouth and is now trying to back-track. Too bad, punk. What you said is already out there.Did they really, then how about a link showing where the Nazis blamed the Jews for the destruction and deaths in gaza ?
That was what my reply was to, so lets see you squirm out of this without showing yourself up.
"...blame the arab muslims for it all"
Just like the Nazis blamed the Jews for all their problems.
Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.
So produce the link little worm or squirm done your stinking hole.
Israel claims borders on Palestinian land.Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, you are not listening.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?
The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.
Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.
Most Respectfully,
R
You have that backwards.
Palestine has international borders.
Israel is defined by armistice lines.
Then you base the rest of your post of false premise.
No, YOU have that wrong. Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. That's just a fact. There's no going around that.
"Then you base the rest of your post of false premise"
This is what you post when you have no rebuttal. What exactly did he post that was based on false premise?
Interesting legal concept.
Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.
And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties
Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times,...
So true, however, it was relatively stable and peaceful during the Ottoman period. When Palestine was carved out after WWI, all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens. There is no evidence that that amicable relationship would not continue.
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)Then Britain landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket and fucked everything up big time. There has been nothing but death and destruction since.
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
REvery day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
You forgot to mention inside Palestine.
And you refuse to give it it's full title MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. Why is that ?
It had no land or borders.
Which mandate are you going by as there were two for Palestine...............
What does that have to do with my post?sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, you are not listening.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?
The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.
Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.
Most Respectfully,
R
That does not look correct.
...before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.
FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation. But it wasn’t the first illegitimate occupation.
That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.
Occupation of Palestine started in 1948
...and Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in 1948 occupied Palestine...
1948 Internally Displaced Persons Palestinians
The 69-page book explores the emergence of these parties and their programs and their influence in the political life of the Palestinians in the 1948 occupied territories.
Al-Zaytouna Centre - Information Report 25 Arab Parties in 1948 Occupied Palestine in Israel
"The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine"
If this is true, then why did Israel give back the Sinai in 1979 (they actually offered to give it back following the sic day war, but Egypt signed the Khartoum Resolution", offer to give back the Golan for a peace treaty (Syria also signed the Khartoum Resolution) and have offered to give up virtually the entire West Bank for a peace offer with the Palestinians (who have refused every one) ?
The answer is because the 'Zionist colonial project' is pure 100% Palestinian propaganda. It's simply not true.
A lot as it detailed exactly what was going on, proving you wrong in the process.
The Palestinians or the US paid oligarchs in Ramallah?sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, you are not listening.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?
The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.
Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.
Most Respectfully,
R
That does not look correct.
...before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.
FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation. But it wasn’t the first illegitimate occupation.
That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.
Occupation of Palestine started in 1948
...and Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in 1948 occupied Palestine...
1948 Internally Displaced Persons Palestinians
The 69-page book explores the emergence of these parties and their programs and their influence in the political life of the Palestinians in the 1948 occupied territories.
Al-Zaytouna Centre - Information Report 25 Arab Parties in 1948 Occupied Palestine in Israel
"That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day."
In your dreams moron. Even the Palestinians recognize that territory as being Israel's. What the fuck is wrong with you? You have got to be the most unaware poster concerning this conflict.
Define Palestinian using contemporary evidence of who was named as Palestinians ?
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times,...
So true, however, it was relatively stable and peaceful during the Ottoman period. When Palestine was carved out after WWI, all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens. There is no evidence that that amicable relationship would not continue.
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)Then Britain landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket and fucked everything up big time. There has been nothing but death and destruction since.
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take.
Then Britain came by catering to the agenda of foreigners and fucked that up. There has been nothing but death and destruction ever since. Britain took the low road.
LINK ?
They had the options spelt out and they refused them all, so they only have themselves to blame. LIVE WITH IT
Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, here is something to agree with.
(COMMENT)Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times,...
So true, however, it was relatively stable and peaceful during the Ottoman period. When Palestine was carved out after WWI, all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens. There is no evidence that that amicable relationship would not continue.
Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.
The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take. They did not have to extend those rights to the govern. They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do. A set of decisions they have come to regret. At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims. Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks.
(COMMENT)Then Britain landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket and fucked everything up big time. There has been nothing but death and destruction since.
Well not exactly. The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers. In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920). It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close. Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category (the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc) they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas. Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
REvery day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.
You forgot to mention inside Palestine.
And you refuse to give it it's full title MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. Why is that ?
It had no land or borders.
Which mandate as there were two of them
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, you're in part correct. Now you are "quibbling" (argue or raise objections about a trivial matter) with words --- as opposed to making a valid and worthy contribution. Let's lay this to rest once and for all. This is one of those issues which the Palestinians believe they can force a change over though force and active belligerence. It is at least one of the attitudes that has prevented the Arab Palestinian to see a productive way though negotiations for a lasting peace.
I do question your description of the Mandate as "temporary." I believe the better term to apply is "indefinite" (meaning: lasting for an undetermined period or an unstated time). There was Article 22 criteria to be met that the Palestinians declined to engage. Palestine is not capable of standing on its own even today, being parasitic on the donor nations.
From 1922 - 1946: Palestine the PLACE was mutually delineated by the Council, the ALLIED POWERS, and the Mandatory as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, hereinafter described as "Palestine."
Afterwards and until 1948, Palestine was delineated as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, less the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
After 1948, Palestine was delineated as the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied, less the combined territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and that territory under the sovereign control of Israel. After 15 May 1948 and until 1988, Palestine was defined as a legal entity, not self-governing; with the United Nations Commission for Palestine as the successor for Government of Palestine.
After November 1988, Palestine was re-defined as the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; --- as recognized by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated --- as acknowledged by the UN.
NOTE: The West Bank was NOT part of Palestine, either delineated as part of the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied --- or --- as a component of the territory occupied since 1967. During the period April 1950 until July 1988 (and the Disengagement), the West Bank was a sovereign to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The West Bank was annexed by the authority of the West Bank Palestinian exercising their right of self-determination.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, you're in part correct. Now you are "quibbling" (argue or raise objections about a trivial matter) with words --- as opposed to making a valid and worthy contribution. Let's lay this to rest once and for all. This is one of those issues which the Palestinians believe they can force a change over though force and active belligerence. It is at least one of the attitudes that has prevented the Arab Palestinian to see a productive way though negotiations for a lasting peace.
I do question your description of the Mandate as "temporary." I believe the better term to apply is "indefinite" (meaning: lasting for an undetermined period or an unstated time). There was Article 22 criteria to be met that the Palestinians declined to engage. Palestine is not capable of standing on its own even today, being parasitic on the donor nations.
(COMMENT)Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.
It had no land or borders.
From 1922 - 1946: Palestine the PLACE was mutually delineated by the Council, the ALLIED POWERS, and the Mandatory as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, hereinafter described as "Palestine."
Afterwards and until 1948, Palestine was delineated as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, less the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
After 1948, Palestine was delineated as the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied, less the combined territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and that territory under the sovereign control of Israel. After 15 May 1948 and until 1988, Palestine was defined as a legal entity, not self-governing; with the United Nations Commission for Palestine as the successor for Government of Palestine.
After November 1988, Palestine was re-defined as the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; --- as recognized by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated --- as acknowledged by the UN.
NOTE: The West Bank was NOT part of Palestine, either delineated as part of the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied --- or --- as a component of the territory occupied since 1967. During the period April 1950 until July 1988 (and the Disengagement), the West Bank was a sovereign to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The West Bank was annexed by the authority of the West Bank Palestinian exercising their right of self-determination.
Most Respectfully,
R
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,665
- 4,167
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #578
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:The Palestinians or the US paid oligarchs in Ramallah?sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, you are not listening.
(COMMENT)...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory (the area covered by OETA) went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?
The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.
Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.
Most Respectfully,
R
That does not look correct.
...before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.
FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation. But it wasn’t the first illegitimate occupation.
That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.
Occupation of Palestine started in 1948
...and Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in 1948 occupied Palestine...
1948 Internally Displaced Persons Palestinians
The 69-page book explores the emergence of these parties and their programs and their influence in the political life of the Palestinians in the 1948 occupied territories.
Al-Zaytouna Centre - Information Report 25 Arab Parties in 1948 Occupied Palestine in Israel
"That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day."
In your dreams moron. Even the Palestinians recognize that territory as being Israel's. What the fuck is wrong with you? You have got to be the most unaware poster concerning this conflict.
Define Palestinian using contemporary evidence of who was named as Palestinians ?
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Article 5:
The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.
Article 6:
The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.
Article 6:
The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
The Avalon Project The Palestinian National Charter
You're welcome.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,665
- 4,167
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #579
What are the Palestinians trying to change?P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, you're in part correct. Now you are "quibbling" (argue or raise objections about a trivial matter) with words --- as opposed to making a valid and worthy contribution. Let's lay this to rest once and for all. This is one of those issues which the Palestinians believe they can force a change over though force and active belligerence. It is at least one of the attitudes that has prevented the Arab Palestinian to see a productive way though negotiations for a lasting peace.
When the people could stand alone was a goal oriented termination date.I do question your description of the Mandate as "temporary." I believe the better term to apply is "indefinite" (meaning: lasting for an undetermined period or an unstated time). There was Article 22 criteria to be met that the Palestinians declined to engage. Palestine is not capable of standing on its own even today, being parasitic on the donor nations.
Of course the British, with its military force, prevented that from happening.
Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.
It had no land or borders.
(COMMENT)
From 1922 - 1946: Palestine the PLACE was mutually delineated by the Council, the ALLIED POWERS, and the Mandatory as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, hereinafter described as "Palestine."
Afterwards and until 1948, Palestine was delineated as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, less the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
After 1948, Palestine was delineated as the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied, less the combined territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and that territory under the sovereign control of Israel. After 15 May 1948 and until 1988, Palestine was defined as a legal entity, not self-governing; with the United Nations Commission for Palestine as the successor for Government of Palestine.
After November 1988, Palestine was re-defined as the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; --- as recognized by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated --- as acknowledged by the UN.
NOTE: The West Bank was NOT part of Palestine, either delineated as part of the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied --- or --- as a component of the territory occupied since 1967. During the period April 1950 until July 1988 (and the Disengagement), the West Bank was a sovereign to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The West Bank was annexed by the authority of the West Bank Palestinian exercising their right of self-determination.
Most Respectfully,
R
3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978
What territory were they talking about when according to you there was none.
You're such a dumbass! Are you actually saying the Nazis didn't blame the Jews?Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.
So produce the link little worm or squirm done your stinking hole.
Here's your link, punk-ass...
Want more?People frequently ask why the Jews were the target of the Holocaust or why the Holocaust happened. The first is an easy question to answer. Jews were the targets of the Holocaust because Hitler hated Jews and blamed them for all of the problems in the world. He especially blamed them for Germany's loss of World War I. Hitler told the German people that they could have won the first war, if Germany had not been "stabbed in the back" by the Jews and their conspirators.
From a book on Anne Frank...
It's hard to believe some dumbass would actually argue that the Nazis didn't blame the Jews, but you've proven to the world, you are that dumbass!
You asked for one link, I gave you three.KEY CONCEPT: Everyone knew from the first that the Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's problems and they wanted the Jews to leave Germany.
Worm out...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 57
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 94
- Views
- 849
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 442
- Replies
- 46
- Views
- 593
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 142
- Views
- 643
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 13
- Replies
- 148
- Views
- 377
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8029
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-