Lest we forget...

[P F Tinmore]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

You need to start formulating actual arguments to present in the debate. Start with these: Were any of the residents of Lydda combatants as opposed to "innocent civilians"? Was there a military value to holding the village? Did this event happen within the context of war?

Team Palestine, as a whole, really has trouble understanding what "innocent civilian" means.

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

 

[Phoenall]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

You need to start formulating actual arguments to present in the debate. Start with these: Were any of the residents of Lydda combatants as opposed to "innocent civilians"? Was there a military value to holding the village? Did this event happen within the context of war?

Team Palestine, as a whole, really has trouble understanding what "innocent civilian" means.

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

First time you have admitted that the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are living on stolen land. Have you seen the truth at last and realised that the land was always Jewish

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating my point that Team Palestine has a poor understanding of what "innocent civilians" means.

Above, you make an ENTIRE GROUP and every member in it, in the context of this thread, viable targets for violence and murder. You discard the distinction between combatants and non-combatants; between a purpose in military combat and exterminating the vermin; between

You make one entire group, and every member in it, collectively and individually guilty, even if they are pregnant women guarding their children, or babies in their cradles, or old men at prayer in a holy sanctuary, or people drinking chocolate at a cafe.

And you make the other entire group, and every member in it, collectively and individually innocent, even if they are shooting guns or throwing grenades, or launching rockets, or building attack tunnels, or stabbing people.

That, my friend, is the vile ideology of the Shoah, of the Rwandan genocide, of the Armenian genocide, of the destruction of the American First Nations Peoples. That is the vile ideology of the Palestinian mentality.

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

The Article 16 Clause says that the Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab-Palestinians (or any variation thereof) were not a party to the Treaty.

By 1948, the Legal Jewish Immigrants with citizenship as established by the citizenship law, was an inhabitant (people who fulfill the requirements for legal residency) --- (Article 7 of Mandate: "There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine).

All aspects of your interpretation is exceptionally short-sighted.

• There was no promise made to the Arab Palestinians, as they consistently declined to participate in the Article 22 tutelage requirements, as offered by the Mandatory.
• The Arab Palestinians had no greater standing in the eyes of the deciding Allied Powers (having Title and Rights --- and the power and authority to determine the "future of these territories."
• Than the "trust" was that as may be determined by the Allied Powers in the establishment of the Mandate.
​

The Arab Palestinians want something for nothing. They want the right to be on the losing side of a World War (twice in one century - Ottoman/Turks in WWI and NAZIs in WWII) and then demand to be rewarded for it. Then they want to be rewarded after forming an Arab League coalition which mounted a coordinated attack against the Jewish People exercising their right to self-determination. They want the sympathy for the unlawful use of force (Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter) against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel, to take by force that which they could not achieve through peaceful diplomatic efforts. And then when defeated, refused to make the effort to assume a posture of peace. Instead, the Arab Palestinians adopted "Armed Struggle" as the means of achieving the desired outcome (in contravention with Article 2(3), Chapter 1, UN Charter --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered").

You may want to ignore Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty, or Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres before that, or Article 16 of the Mudros Armistice, but the intent is very clear --- the Title and Rights were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers, as negotiated by the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

The Article 16 Clause says that the Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab-Palestinians (or any variation thereof) were not a party to the Treaty.

By 1948, the Legal Jewish Immigrants with citizenship as established by the citizenship law, was an inhabitant (people who fulfill the requirements for legal residency) --- (Article 7 of Mandate: "There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine).

All aspects of your interpretation is exceptionally short-sighted.

• There was no promise made to the Arab Palestinians, as they consistently declined to participate in the Article 22 tutelage requirements, as offered by the Mandatory.
• The Arab Palestinians had no greater standing in the eyes of the deciding Allied Powers (having Title and Rights --- and the power and authority to determine the "future of these territories."
• Than the "trust" was that as may be determined by the Allied Powers in the establishment of the Mandate.
​

The Arab Palestinians want something for nothing. They want the right to be on the losing side of a World War (twice in one century - Ottoman/Turks in WWI and NAZIs in WWII) and then demand to be rewarded for it. Then they want to be rewarded after forming an Arab League coalition which mounted a coordinated attack against the Jewish People exercising their right to self-determination. They want the sympathy for the unlawful use of force (Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter) against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel, to take by force that which they could not achieve through peaceful diplomatic efforts. And then when defeated, refused to make the effort to assume a posture of peace. Instead, the Arab Palestinians adopted "Armed Struggle" as the means of achieving the desired outcome (in contravention with Article 2(3), Chapter 1, UN Charter --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered").

You may want to ignore Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty, or Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres before that, or Article 16 of the Mudros Armistice, but the intent is very clear --- the Title and Rights were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers, as negotiated by the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​

What were Israel's international borders in 1948?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

The Article 16 Clause says that the Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab-Palestinians (or any variation thereof) were not a party to the Treaty.

By 1948, the Legal Jewish Immigrants with citizenship as established by the citizenship law, was an inhabitant (people who fulfill the requirements for legal residency) --- (Article 7 of Mandate: "There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine).

All aspects of your interpretation is exceptionally short-sighted.

• There was no promise made to the Arab Palestinians, as they consistently declined to participate in the Article 22 tutelage requirements, as offered by the Mandatory.
• The Arab Palestinians had no greater standing in the eyes of the deciding Allied Powers (having Title and Rights --- and the power and authority to determine the "future of these territories."
• Than the "trust" was that as may be determined by the Allied Powers in the establishment of the Mandate.
​

The Arab Palestinians want something for nothing. They want the right to be on the losing side of a World War (twice in one century - Ottoman/Turks in WWI and NAZIs in WWII) and then demand to be rewarded for it. Then they want to be rewarded after forming an Arab League coalition which mounted a coordinated attack against the Jewish People exercising their right to self-determination. They want the sympathy for the unlawful use of force (Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter) against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel, to take by force that which they could not achieve through peaceful diplomatic efforts. And then when defeated, refused to make the effort to assume a posture of peace. Instead, the Arab Palestinians adopted "Armed Struggle" as the means of achieving the desired outcome (in contravention with Article 2(3), Chapter 1, UN Charter --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered").

You may want to ignore Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty, or Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres before that, or Article 16 of the Mudros Armistice, but the intent is very clear --- the Title and Rights were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers, as negotiated by the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​

What were Israel's international borders in 1948?

I can recall at least three separate instances of your babbling being addressed in tedious, excruciating detail.

It's a pattern of behavior where you make the same pointless comments / false claims in multiple threads, your pointless comments are addressed / false claims refuted, yet you rattle on with the same nonsense moments later in a different thread.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep asking this question over and over again. You don't want to hear the answer.

P F Tinmore, et al,

As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

The Article 16 Clause says that the Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab-Palestinians (or any variation thereof) were not a party to the Treaty.

By 1948, the Legal Jewish Immigrants with citizenship as established by the citizenship law, was an inhabitant (people who fulfill the requirements for legal residency) --- (Article 7 of Mandate: "There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine).

All aspects of your interpretation is exceptionally short-sighted.

• There was no promise made to the Arab Palestinians, as they consistently declined to participate in the Article 22 tutelage requirements, as offered by the Mandatory.
• The Arab Palestinians had no greater standing in the eyes of the deciding Allied Powers (having Title and Rights --- and the power and authority to determine the "future of these territories."
• Than the "trust" was that as may be determined by the Allied Powers in the establishment of the Mandate.
​

The Arab Palestinians want something for nothing. They want the right to be on the losing side of a World War (twice in one century - Ottoman/Turks in WWI and NAZIs in WWII) and then demand to be rewarded for it. Then they want to be rewarded after forming an Arab League coalition which mounted a coordinated attack against the Jewish People exercising their right to self-determination. They want the sympathy for the unlawful use of force (Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter) against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel, to take by force that which they could not achieve through peaceful diplomatic efforts. And then when defeated, refused to make the effort to assume a posture of peace. Instead, the Arab Palestinians adopted "Armed Struggle" as the means of achieving the desired outcome (in contravention with Article 2(3), Chapter 1, UN Charter --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered").

You may want to ignore Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty, or Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres before that, or Article 16 of the Mudros Armistice, but the intent is very clear --- the Title and Rights were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers, as negotiated by the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​

What were Israel's international borders in 1948?

(COMMENT)

The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.

In 1948, the borders where still moving with the FEBA. In 1949, the borders were in dispute. By the turn of the 21st Century, the International borders were negotiated in accordance with the treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

You can attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the borders by any means that you want. What was in 1948, has no relationship to the present day. The Israeli Borders that pertain to the West Bank and Gaza Strip are defined in Treaty of Peace EGYPT and ISRAEL (with annexes, maps and agreed minutes). Signed at Washington on 26 March 1979; and Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994; BUT --- it is clearly defined what the present day International Borders are for Israel, relative to the Palestinians. But the Palestinians have not present day border that they control. Nor have they made any attempt to establish such borders.

• Article 3: The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

• Article II. The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recog nized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II,
​

Anything else is merely an attempt to confuse the issues.

So you can continue to ask questions about condition 70 years ago. But it has no bearing today on where the International boundaries are.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

A pimp for Hamas Islamist terrorists calling others pimps. Now that's funny.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

The Article 16 Clause says that the Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab-Palestinians (or any variation thereof) were not a party to the Treaty.

By 1948, the Legal Jewish Immigrants with citizenship as established by the citizenship law, was an inhabitant (people who fulfill the requirements for legal residency) --- (Article 7 of Mandate: "There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine).

All aspects of your interpretation is exceptionally short-sighted.

• There was no promise made to the Arab Palestinians, as they consistently declined to participate in the Article 22 tutelage requirements, as offered by the Mandatory.
• The Arab Palestinians had no greater standing in the eyes of the deciding Allied Powers (having Title and Rights --- and the power and authority to determine the "future of these territories."
• Than the "trust" was that as may be determined by the Allied Powers in the establishment of the Mandate.
​

The Arab Palestinians want something for nothing. They want the right to be on the losing side of a World War (twice in one century - Ottoman/Turks in WWI and NAZIs in WWII) and then demand to be rewarded for it. Then they want to be rewarded after forming an Arab League coalition which mounted a coordinated attack against the Jewish People exercising their right to self-determination. They want the sympathy for the unlawful use of force (Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter) against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel, to take by force that which they could not achieve through peaceful diplomatic efforts. And then when defeated, refused to make the effort to assume a posture of peace. Instead, the Arab Palestinians adopted "Armed Struggle" as the means of achieving the desired outcome (in contravention with Article 2(3), Chapter 1, UN Charter --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered").

You may want to ignore Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty, or Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres before that, or Article 16 of the Mudros Armistice, but the intent is very clear --- the Title and Rights were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers, as negotiated by the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​

What were Israel's international borders in 1948?

I can recall at least three separate instances of your babbling being addressed in tedious, excruciating detail.

It's a pattern of behavior where you make the same pointless comments / false claims in multiple threads, your pointless comments are addressed / false claims refuted, yet you rattle on with the same nonsense moments later in a different thread.

You can't violate the territorial integrity of a country that has no territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep asking this question over and over again. You don't want to hear the answer.

P F Tinmore, et al,

As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

The Article 16 Clause says that the Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab-Palestinians (or any variation thereof) were not a party to the Treaty.

By 1948, the Legal Jewish Immigrants with citizenship as established by the citizenship law, was an inhabitant (people who fulfill the requirements for legal residency) --- (Article 7 of Mandate: "There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine).

All aspects of your interpretation is exceptionally short-sighted.

• There was no promise made to the Arab Palestinians, as they consistently declined to participate in the Article 22 tutelage requirements, as offered by the Mandatory.
• The Arab Palestinians had no greater standing in the eyes of the deciding Allied Powers (having Title and Rights --- and the power and authority to determine the "future of these territories."
• Than the "trust" was that as may be determined by the Allied Powers in the establishment of the Mandate.
​

The Arab Palestinians want something for nothing. They want the right to be on the losing side of a World War (twice in one century - Ottoman/Turks in WWI and NAZIs in WWII) and then demand to be rewarded for it. Then they want to be rewarded after forming an Arab League coalition which mounted a coordinated attack against the Jewish People exercising their right to self-determination. They want the sympathy for the unlawful use of force (Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter) against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel, to take by force that which they could not achieve through peaceful diplomatic efforts. And then when defeated, refused to make the effort to assume a posture of peace. Instead, the Arab Palestinians adopted "Armed Struggle" as the means of achieving the desired outcome (in contravention with Article 2(3), Chapter 1, UN Charter --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered").

You may want to ignore Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty, or Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres before that, or Article 16 of the Mudros Armistice, but the intent is very clear --- the Title and Rights were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers, as negotiated by the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​

What were Israel's international borders in 1948?

(COMMENT)

The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.

In 1948, the borders where still moving with the FEBA. In 1949, the borders were in dispute. By the turn of the 21st Century, the International borders were negotiated in accordance with the treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

You can attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the borders by any means that you want. What was in 1948, has no relationship to the present day. The Israeli Borders that pertain to the West Bank and Gaza Strip are defined in Treaty of Peace EGYPT and ISRAEL (with annexes, maps and agreed minutes). Signed at Washington on 26 March 1979; and Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994; BUT --- it is clearly defined what the present day International Borders are for Israel, relative to the Palestinians. But the Palestinians have not present day border that they control. Nor have they made any attempt to establish such borders.

• Article 3: The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

• Article II. The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recog nized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II,
​

Anything else is merely an attempt to confuse the issues.

So you can continue to ask questions about condition 70 years ago. But it has no bearing today on where the International boundaries are.

Most Respectfully,
R

The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.​

Does that mean the borders of the military occupation?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

The Article 16 Clause says that the Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab-Palestinians (or any variation thereof) were not a party to the Treaty.

By 1948, the Legal Jewish Immigrants with citizenship as established by the citizenship law, was an inhabitant (people who fulfill the requirements for legal residency) --- (Article 7 of Mandate: "There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine).

All aspects of your interpretation is exceptionally short-sighted.

• There was no promise made to the Arab Palestinians, as they consistently declined to participate in the Article 22 tutelage requirements, as offered by the Mandatory.
• The Arab Palestinians had no greater standing in the eyes of the deciding Allied Powers (having Title and Rights --- and the power and authority to determine the "future of these territories."
• Than the "trust" was that as may be determined by the Allied Powers in the establishment of the Mandate.
​

The Arab Palestinians want something for nothing. They want the right to be on the losing side of a World War (twice in one century - Ottoman/Turks in WWI and NAZIs in WWII) and then demand to be rewarded for it. Then they want to be rewarded after forming an Arab League coalition which mounted a coordinated attack against the Jewish People exercising their right to self-determination. They want the sympathy for the unlawful use of force (Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter) against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel, to take by force that which they could not achieve through peaceful diplomatic efforts. And then when defeated, refused to make the effort to assume a posture of peace. Instead, the Arab Palestinians adopted "Armed Struggle" as the means of achieving the desired outcome (in contravention with Article 2(3), Chapter 1, UN Charter --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered").

You may want to ignore Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty, or Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres before that, or Article 16 of the Mudros Armistice, but the intent is very clear --- the Title and Rights were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers, as negotiated by the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​

What were Israel's international borders in 1948?

I can recall at least three separate instances of your babbling being addressed in tedious, excruciating detail.

It's a pattern of behavior where you make the same pointless comments / false claims in multiple threads, your pointless comments are addressed / false claims refuted, yet you rattle on with the same nonsense moments later in a different thread.

You can't violate the territorial integrity of a country that has no territory.

WTF are you nattering about now. You make no sense.

 

[Shusha]

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

Rocco has the actual legal arguments well in hand. And I agree with him and don't have much to add to that part of it. So I'm going to tackle this on the moral front, as I am wont to do anyway. so.....




WTF? So that is your moral stance? That it is perfectly morally correct to steal people's land prior to (insert date here) when (insert law here) was enacted to prevent the theft of land?

Why do you think laws change, Tinmore? Because its acknowledged that the existing code of practice is IMMORAL. If you can make restitution -- shouldn't you? If you can correct the problem -- shouldn't you? If you can be morally better than the "old laws" -- shouldn't you? FFS! Of course you should. Jeez, its like saying that you will damn well keep your slave and continue to rape your wife because when you bought him and married her it was perfectly legal to enslave and rape and now that you know better there is no reason to actually do better.

 

[Shusha]

against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​

What were Israel's international borders in 1948?

You play such a weird hypocritical game with this.

On the one hand you argue that Israel had no international borders and therefore is ineligible for nationhood.

On the other you argue that "Palestine" had clear international borders and therefore became a nation in 1924 (or whatever date you are arguing) because it had clear borders.

You are using the same facts and data to deny one and support the other. Its ridiculous.

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating my point that Team Palestine has a poor understanding of what "innocent civilians" means.

Above, you make an ENTIRE GROUP and every member in it, in the context of this thread, viable targets for violence and murder. You discard the distinction between combatants and non-combatants; between a purpose in military combat and exterminating the vermin; between

You make one entire group, and every member in it, collectively and individually guilty, even if they are pregnant women guarding their children, or babies in their cradles, or old men at prayer in a holy sanctuary, or people drinking chocolate at a cafe.

And you make the other entire group, and every member in it, collectively and individually innocent, even if they are shooting guns or throwing grenades, or launching rockets, or building attack tunnels, or stabbing people.

That, my friend, is the vile ideology of the Shoah, of the Rwandan genocide, of the Armenian genocide, of the destruction of the American First Nations Peoples. That is the vile ideology of the Palestinian mentality.

And then he denied he was a nazi Jew hater and did not single out the Jews for racist attention. He is the worst kind of racist that wallows in the slime of his own hatred with pleasure.

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

WHO SAID detail the international law that says the lane was owned by arab muslims after being given to the Jews by the lands legal owners. So when did the zionists steal palestinian land when it was theirs under international law and international treaty.

YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT USING INTERNATIONAL LAW RETROSPECTIVELY AS IT WILL THEN BE USED AGAINST YOUR THEFT OF FIRST NATIONS LANDS

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...

Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.

Not true. Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world. You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.

The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.

(COMMENT)

•• First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
•• Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.
​

In order for it to be illegal (forbidden by law), there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof. (TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River. The UN (both the Special Committee and the General Assembly) recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

(QUESTION)

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​

Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.

Ans just where is that written down in an international treaty and agreed by all parties. The LoN mandate makes it very clear that 22% of palestine was for the Jewish NATIONal home while 78% was for the arab muslim national home. It was also agreed that the two peoples would not inhabit each others lands without being allowed by the soveriegns to do so.


WHY DO YOU DENY THE JEWS THEIR LEGAL, MORAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION, A HOMELAND AND THE RIGHT TO DEFEND AGAINST YERRORISM AND VIOLENCE ?