P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 79,776
- 4,414
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #561
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)
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
"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.