Lest we forget...

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here. OR! Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.

Let's consider:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
​

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
​

CHAPTER I
Charter of the United Nations
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 2
​

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

PRINCIPLE VIEW of the PALESTINIAN:

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,
before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to
Palestine to enforce partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Indeed, they were asserting their rights.

(COMMENT)

OK, you will have to be a bit more specific here...

• What is the specific "right" that you claim is being asserted? The right to do what (Exactly)?
​

Is it your position that the Arab Palestinian has the "right" to threaten and use force?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

In the interests of fairness and as RoccoR mentioned it today is the anniversary of Zionist Israel's "Alamo"

Alligator tears much?

"The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to a massacre of Jews that took place after a two-day battle in which Jewish Kibbutz residents and Haganah militia defended Kfar Etzion from a combined force of the Arab Legion and local Arab men on May 13, 1948, the day before the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Of the 129 Haganah fighters and Jewish kibbutzniks who died during the defence of the settlement, Martin Gilbert states that fifteen were murdered on surrendering.[1] Controversy surrounds the responsibility and role of the Arab Legion in the killing of those who surrendered. The official Israeli version maintains that the kibbutz residents and Haganah soldiers were massacred by local Arabs and the Arab Legion of the Jordanian Army as they were surrendering." Kfar Etzion massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here. OR! Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.

Let's consider:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
​

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
​

CHAPTER I
Charter of the United Nations
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 2
​

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

PRINCIPLE VIEW of the PALESTINIAN:

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,
before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to
Palestine to enforce partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Indeed, they were asserting their rights.

(COMMENT)

OK, you will have to be a bit more specific here...

• What is the specific "right" that you claim is being asserted? The right to do what (Exactly)?
​

Is it your position that the Arab Palestinian has the "right" to threaten and use force?

Most Respectfully,
R

They were asserting their right to territorial integrity.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here. OR! Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.

Let's consider:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
​

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
​

CHAPTER I
Charter of the United Nations
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 2
​

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

PRINCIPLE VIEW of the PALESTINIAN:

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,
before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to
Palestine to enforce partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Indeed, they were asserting their rights.

(COMMENT)

OK, you will have to be a bit more specific here...

• What is the specific "right" that you claim is being asserted? The right to do what (Exactly)?
​

Is it your position that the Arab Palestinian has the "right" to threaten and use force?

Most Respectfully,
R

They were asserting their right to territorial integrity.

When did that become a right then, and when did it mean they could steal another nations lands because their God told them to

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here. OR! Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.

Let's consider:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
​

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
​

CHAPTER I
Charter of the United Nations
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 2
​

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

PRINCIPLE VIEW of the PALESTINIAN:

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,
before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to
Palestine to enforce partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Indeed, they were asserting their rights.

(COMMENT)

OK, you will have to be a bit more specific here...

• What is the specific "right" that you claim is being asserted? The right to do what (Exactly)?
​

Is it your position that the Arab Palestinian has the "right" to threaten and use force?

Most Respectfully,
R

They were asserting their right to territorial integrity.

When did that become a right then, and when did it mean they could steal another nations lands because their God told them to

UN resolutions affirm the Palestinians right to territorial integrity and it is always presented as an already existing right. They never specified when that right was acquired so I believe that it came with the territory.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here. OR! Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.

Let's consider:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
​

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
​

CHAPTER I
Charter of the United Nations
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 2
​

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

PRINCIPLE VIEW of the PALESTINIAN:

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,
before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to
Palestine to enforce partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Indeed, they were asserting their rights.

(COMMENT)

OK, you will have to be a bit more specific here...

• What is the specific "right" that you claim is being asserted? The right to do what (Exactly)?
​

Is it your position that the Arab Palestinian has the "right" to threaten and use force?

Most Respectfully,
R

They were asserting their right to territorial integrity.

When did that become a right then, and when did it mean they could steal another nations lands because their God told them to

UN resolutions affirm the Palestinians right to territorial integrity and it is always presented as an already existing right. They never specified when that right was acquired so I believe that it came with the territory.

So no actual right outside of it being a recommendation, and you cant find when it was granted as a recommended right. Isn't this the story of your every post. You base your belief of recommendations, might be's, could haves and false premise.


By the way there is no right to steal another nations territory because you believe that it is yours under some obscure verse in the koran and hadiths. The first thing the Palestinians need to do is keep their promise to the world and negotiate peace and mutual borders, and for idiots to keep saying they have borders because the LoN mandate says that the mandate of Palestine has borders.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here. OR! Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.

Let's consider:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
​

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
​

CHAPTER I
Charter of the United Nations
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 2
​

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

PRINCIPLE VIEW of the PALESTINIAN:

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,
before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to
Palestine to enforce partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Indeed, they were asserting their rights.

(COMMENT)

OK, you will have to be a bit more specific here...

• What is the specific "right" that you claim is being asserted? The right to do what (Exactly)?
​

Is it your position that the Arab Palestinian has the "right" to threaten and use force?

Most Respectfully,
R

They were asserting their right to territorial integrity.

When did that become a right then, and when did it mean they could steal another nations lands because their God told them to

UN resolutions affirm the Palestinians right to territorial integrity and it is always presented as an already existing right. They never specified when that right was acquired so I believe that it came with the territory.

And the actual meaning of territorial integrity is


Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states. Conversely it states that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression.


So the Palestinians have lost before they start as they will be in breach of international law if they try to take and of Israel's land. Remember the laws work for both parties and not just for the arab muslims

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, relinquished the title and rights to the Allied Powers; including those rights necessary to set the conditions for the future within the Region.

ARTICLE 16 • SECTION I -- TERRITORIAL CLAUSES • Part I -- Treaty of Lausanne​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​

UN resolutions affirm the Palestinians right to territorial integrity and it is always presented as an already existing right. They never specified when that right was acquired so I believe that it came with the territory.

(QUESTION)

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic hereby renounced all rights and title whatsoever over the territories to the Allied Powers. How did the Arab Palestinian acquire territorial integrity over the territory from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, (Article 3 Territory: AKA Syria)?

Territorial Integrity
The Encyclopedia Princetoniensis • The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
Introduction / Definition:
“The principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4” (the prohibition of the use of force), as well as in other important texts, including those on self-determination. The concept includes the inviolability of the territory of the State, including territory under the effective control and possession of a State. The International Court has held that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.”

(COMMENT)

It has only been in, in the last century or so, that the principle has been given structure. In order to practically apply the "Right of Territorial Integrity," there must be territory under the independence and sovereignty of the claimant (the Arab Palestinian). Your assumption that it "came with the territory" is not necessarily true. The exercise of territorial integrity pre-supposes that there is an "Act of Aggression" (UN A/RES/3314 - Definition of Aggression 1974) (non-binding) that threatens the territory. Having said that, the consideration of a "crime" is really only a late 20th Century/early 21st Century concept. It has only been six years, since the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute: 2010 Review Conference, that the topic of the Article 8 bis 3 Crime of aggression was seriously dealt with; and included:

• an overview of different states’ and other stakeholders’ positions on the Court’s aggression jurisdiction;

• a discussion of the proposed and adopted definition of the crime of aggression and the issues surrounding such definition; and

• a discussion of the provisions that set out the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression, including the provisions as proposed, the main issues of contention for the Review Conference, and the jurisdictional provisions as they were ultimately adopted by the Conference.
​

BUT, there has not been an impact realistic adverse consequence on the application in the "use of force" or the "criminal remedies" in the case of harm. Again, as stated before the Russian takeover of the Crimea --- and the annexation of the occupied territory away from the Ukraine.

There was absolutely no carve-out in the Treaty for any independence and sovereignty to the Arab constituency within the Region; nor any boundary outlining a specific territory for the Arabs, on which to base the claim for territorial integrity of a independent sovereignty. Not once is the territory of "Palestine" even mentioned in the Treaty.

Remember, the issue of "territorial integrity" is not simply a matter of the claimant making the claim that it was their territory before, and the Jews came in and took it away. It is several questions which when asked, establish the validity of the claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, relinquished the title and rights to the Allied Powers; including those rights necessary to set the conditions for the future within the Region.

ARTICLE 16 • SECTION I -- TERRITORIAL CLAUSES • Part I -- Treaty of Lausanne​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​

UN resolutions affirm the Palestinians right to territorial integrity and it is always presented as an already existing right. They never specified when that right was acquired so I believe that it came with the territory.

(QUESTION)

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic hereby renounced all rights and title whatsoever over the territories to the Allied Powers. How did the Arab Palestinian acquire territorial integrity over the territory from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, (Article 3 Territory: AKA Syria)?

Territorial Integrity
The Encyclopedia Princetoniensis • The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
Introduction / Definition:
“The principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4” (the prohibition of the use of force), as well as in other important texts, including those on self-determination. The concept includes the inviolability of the territory of the State, including territory under the effective control and possession of a State. The International Court has held that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.”

(COMMENT)

It has only been in, in the last century or so, that the principle has been given structure. In order to practically apply the "Right of Territorial Integrity," there must be territory under the independence and sovereignty of the claimant (the Arab Palestinian). Your assumption that it "came with the territory" is not necessarily true. The exercise of territorial integrity pre-supposes that there is an "Act of Aggression" (UN A/RES/3314 - Definition of Aggression 1974) (non-binding) that threatens the territory. Having said that, the consideration of a "crime" is really only a late 20th Century/early 21st Century concept. It has only been six years, since the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute: 2010 Review Conference, that the topic of the Article 8 bis 3 Crime of aggression was seriously dealt with; and included:

• an overview of different states’ and other stakeholders’ positions on the Court’s aggression jurisdiction;

• a discussion of the proposed and adopted definition of the crime of aggression and the issues surrounding such definition; and

• a discussion of the provisions that set out the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression, including the provisions as proposed, the main issues of contention for the Review Conference, and the jurisdictional provisions as they were ultimately adopted by the Conference.
​

BUT, there has not been an impact realistic adverse consequence on the application in the "use of force" or the "criminal remedies" in the case of harm. Again, as stated before the Russian takeover of the Crimea --- and the annexation of the occupied territory away from the Ukraine.

There was absolutely no carve-out in the Treaty for any independence and sovereignty to the Arab constituency within the Region; nor any boundary outlining a specific territory for the Arabs, on which to base the claim for territorial integrity of a independent sovereignty. Not once is the territory of "Palestine" even mentioned in the Treaty.

Remember, the issue of "territorial integrity" is not simply a matter of the claimant making the claim that it was their territory before, and the Jews came in and took it away. It is several questions which when asked, establish the validity of the claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

PLO leader: There is no Palestinian nation; it is an invention to destroy Israel!

PLO leader: There is no Palestinian nation; it is an invention to destroy Israel! :: Reader comments at Daniel Pipes

 

[Mindful]

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a
Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle
against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality
today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and
tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of
a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand
that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian
people' to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state
with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa.
While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa,
Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we
reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even
a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 Interview with the Dutch newspaper, Le Trouw.)

 

[docmauser1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here. OR! Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.

Let's consider:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
​

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
​

CHAPTER I
Charter of the United Nations
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 2
​

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

PRINCIPLE VIEW of the PALESTINIAN:

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,
before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to
Palestine to enforce partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Indeed, they were asserting their rights.

(COMMENT)

OK, you will have to be a bit more specific here...

• What is the specific "right" that you claim is being asserted? The right to do what (Exactly)?
​

Is it your position that the Arab Palestinian has the "right" to threaten and use force?
Most Respectfully,
R

They were asserting their right to territorial integrity.

What "territorial integrity" stateless arabs have been babbling about?

 

[Coyote]

Folks - we are once again in danger of drifting away from the OP - how does territorial integrity, there is no Palestine, etc relate to the massacre or, other massacres that have occurred on either side in conjunction with this never-ending conflict?

 

[Challenger]

Kfar Etzion is as controversial as Deir Yassin in some ways as there are differing narratives involved. The Zionist one of prisoners deliberately slaughtered after surrendering contrasts with the Arab Legion and eye witness accounts that basically state the prisoners were shot while trying to escape when fighting re-erupted after Etzion was taken.

 

[Phoenall]

Kfar Etzion is as controversial as Deir Yassin in some ways as there are differing narratives involved. The Zionist one of prisoners deliberately slaughtered after surrendering contrasts with the Arab Legion and eye witness accounts that basically state the prisoners were shot while trying to escape when fighting re-erupted after Etzion was taken.

What about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron then, or are all those atrocities acceptable in your eyes?

 

[Challenger]

On the night of 22-23 May 1948, a week after the declaration of the State of Israel, the Palestinian coastal village of Tantura (population 1,500) was attacked and occupied by units of the Israeli army's Alexandroni Brigade. The village, south of Haifa, lay within the area assigned to the Jewish state by the UN General Assembly's partition resolution. In its occupation, depopulation, subsequent destruction, and seizure of all its lands by Israel, the fate of Tantura was similar to that of more than 400 other Palestinian villages during the 1948 war. But it also shared with some two score of these villages the additional agony of a large-scale massacre of its inhabitants.

Word of the Tantura massacre was completely overshadowed at the time by the fighting between Israel and the regular armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, which had entered the country after the state had been proclaimed.

Allegedly, between 20-30 fighters were killed during the attack, a further 100 killed after the surrender, and the following day a further 100 people were murdered in cold blood by Zionist intelligence operatives supported by locals from the nearby Zionist settlements of Atlit, Binyamina, and Maayan Zvi.

https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository...1/15238/Tantura Case in Israel.pdf?sequence=2

 

[Hollie]

In the last week, my country, Israel, including our capital, the Holy City of Jerusalem, have come under an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terror.

A week ago, Eitam and Na’ama Henkin were brutally executed by Palestinian terrorists point-blank in their car. Their four children, Matan, 9, Nitzan, 7, Neta, 4, and Itamar, 9 months old, who are now orphaned, were still in the back seat and miraculously unharmed. Their lives are now irreparably altered.

Days later, two more Israelis were stabbed to death in Jerusalem. One of the men killed was holding his two year old child at the time. More lives and families torn apart.

Two weeks ago, Alexander Levlovitz, who was on his way home after Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) dinner, was murdered when Palestinian youths threw rocks at his car and he lost control.

Over the past 48 hours in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and virtually all parts of Israel, we have had over 150 terror attacks, including stabbings, shootings, stones thrown and vehicular rammings.


Why is the world ignoring a wave of terror in Israel?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Kfar Etzion is as controversial as Deir Yassin in some ways as there are differing narratives involved. The Zionist one of prisoners deliberately slaughtered after surrendering contrasts with the Arab Legion and eye witness accounts that basically state the prisoners were shot while trying to escape when fighting re-erupted after Etzion was taken.

What about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron then, or are all those atrocities acceptable in your eyes?

That was a response to the Zionist invasion.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the last week, my country, Israel, including our capital, the Holy City of Jerusalem, have come under an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terror.

A week ago, Eitam and Na’ama Henkin were brutally executed by Palestinian terrorists point-blank in their car. Their four children, Matan, 9, Nitzan, 7, Neta, 4, and Itamar, 9 months old, who are now orphaned, were still in the back seat and miraculously unharmed. Their lives are now irreparably altered.

Days later, two more Israelis were stabbed to death in Jerusalem. One of the men killed was holding his two year old child at the time. More lives and families torn apart.

Two weeks ago, Alexander Levlovitz, who was on his way home after Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) dinner, was murdered when Palestinian youths threw rocks at his car and he lost control.

Over the past 48 hours in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and virtually all parts of Israel, we have had over 150 terror attacks, including stabbings, shootings, stones thrown and vehicular rammings.


Why is the world ignoring a wave of terror in Israel?

Chickenfeed compare to what Israel does to the Palestinians.

 

[Phoenall]

On the night of 22-23 May 1948, a week after the declaration of the State of Israel, the Palestinian coastal village of Tantura (population 1,500) was attacked and occupied by units of the Israeli army's Alexandroni Brigade. The village, south of Haifa, lay within the area assigned to the Jewish state by the UN General Assembly's partition resolution. In its occupation, depopulation, subsequent destruction, and seizure of all its lands by Israel, the fate of Tantura was similar to that of more than 400 other Palestinian villages during the 1948 war. But it also shared with some two score of these villages the additional agony of a large-scale massacre of its inhabitants.

Word of the Tantura massacre was completely overshadowed at the time by the fighting between Israel and the regular armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, which had entered the country after the state had been proclaimed.

Allegedly, between 20-30 fighters were killed during the attack, a further 100 killed after the surrender, and the following day a further 100 people were murdered in cold blood by Zionist intelligence operatives supported by locals from the nearby Zionist settlements of Atlit, Binyamina, and Maayan Zvi.

https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/15238/Tantura Case in Israel.pdf?sequence=2

No mention of them being Palestinian irregulars in your report by any chance. As that is the plight of such people when they start a war they have no chance of winning.

 

[Phoenall]

Kfar Etzion is as controversial as Deir Yassin in some ways as there are differing narratives involved. The Zionist one of prisoners deliberately slaughtered after surrendering contrasts with the Arab Legion and eye witness accounts that basically state the prisoners were shot while trying to escape when fighting re-erupted after Etzion was taken.

What about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron then, or are all those atrocities acceptable in your eyes?

That was a response to the Zionist invasion.

Which country sent them on this invasion then, maybe you can tell me as none of the other team palestine members seem to know. From what I can gather the Ottomans invited the Jews to migrate in 1850, then the LoN did the same thing is 1923 so no invasion but an invited people by the lands owners. ( the palestinian arab muslims having lost the war in 1917 lost their land when the Ottomans/Turks signed the surrender treaties all a matter of historical accuracy )