Lest we forget...

[Hollie]

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.

As usual, unable to form a coherent argument, you resort to spamming the thread with meaningless piffle.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Those as laid down by the LoN in 1923 that you have been given thousands of times.

What are the international borders of palestine as delineated in their declaration of independence ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

And in the process confuses himself as to what part of the argument goes with which part of the truth.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So that means that the nation of palestine only exists in your fantasy world then, and Israel can over run it any time they want

 

[Phoenall]

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...

(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?

Yes which is also called the green line or 1967 ceasefire lines. Which gives Israel all of area C and Jerusalem

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, Occupied Territory and Sovereign control are two different things.

The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.

Does that mean the borders of the military occupation?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians should be very familiar with both concepts.

• From 1918 to 1920, it was under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.
• From 1949 to 1950, the West Bank was under the effective control of the Jordanians (other Palestinian Jordanians) Occupation by the Hashemite Kingdom.
• From 1950 to 1988, the West Bank was Sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
• From 1949 to 1959, until the dissolution of the All Palestine Government (APG), the Gaza Strip was a Dependent Territory to Egypt.
• From 1959 to 1967, the Gaza Strip was a Protectorate under an Egyptian Military Governorship.
• From 1967 to 2005, the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the Government of Israel (GOI):

§ From 1967 to 1988 the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the GOI as a "Dependent Territory" (a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state yet remains politically outside of the controlling state's integral area.).
§ From 1988 to 2005 after the Declaration of Independence by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), acting as the recognized "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," was under the effective control of the GOI over the Gaza Strip as an Occupied "Protectorate" (a state that is controlled and protected by another state).
§ From 2005 until present, the Gaza Strip is a internally disputed government in a declared Jihadi conflict with the GOI. The GOI has effectively relinquished ground control to the Gaza Strip in 2005.
​

• From 1967 to 1988, the the West Bank was under the GOI effective control of sovereign Jordanian territory until it was politically abandon.
• From 1988 to 1994, the West Bank was a "Protectorate" under occupation by the GOI.

• From 1994 to 1995, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were both Transitional in Political Status under the 1993 Declaration of Principles (Oslo I Accords) and the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II Accords).
• From 1995 until Present:

§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area A ; Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area B ; Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area C ; Full Israeli civil and security control.
​

Other than the Oslo Accords, the status between the 1988 State of Palestine (in a internally disputed government) the recognized "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" have made no to refrain from jihadist armed struggle, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) openly acknowledge their use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the GOI. This includes the use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of the GOI as a means of solving international territorial disputes concerning the frontiers of the GOI. You may argue the origin of the sovereign boundaries of the GOI, but you cannot argue the existence of the sovereign control over these boundaries or the recognition by other states.

In this regard, the question on "where, when and how" the boundaries came into being is a "dispute" that under International Law must be resolved through peaceful means. It cannot be resolved by the use of Jihad or armed struggle as advocated by HAMAS (Covenant and Policy explanation), the PLO/Palestine (Charter that was never dissolved or amended), or the half dozen or so active affiliated Jihadist and Fedayeen organizations that use “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

Most respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, Occupied Territory and Sovereign control are two different things.

The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.

Does that mean the borders of the military occupation?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians should be very familiar with both concepts.

• From 1918 to 1920, it was under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.
• From 1949 to 1950, the West Bank was under the effective control of the Jordanians (other Palestinian Jordanians) Occupation by the Hashemite Kingdom.
• From 1950 to 1988, the West Bank was Sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
• From 1949 to 1959, until the dissolution of the All Palestine Government (APG), the Gaza Strip was a Dependent Territory to Egypt.
• From 1959 to 1967, the Gaza Strip was a Protectorate under an Egyptian Military Governorship.
• From 1967 to 2005, the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the Government of Israel (GOI):

§ From 1967 to 1988 the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the GOI as a "Dependent Territory" (a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state yet remains politically outside of the controlling state's integral area.).
§ From 1988 to 2005 after the Declaration of Independence by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), acting as the recognized "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," was under the effective control of the GOI over the Gaza Strip as an Occupied "Protectorate" (a state that is controlled and protected by another state).
§ From 2005 until present, the Gaza Strip is a internally disputed government in a declared Jihadi conflict with the GOI. The GOI has effectively relinquished ground control to the Gaza Strip in 2005.
​

• From 1967 to 1988, the the West Bank was under the GOI effective control of sovereign Jordanian territory until it was politically abandon.
• From 1988 to 1994, the West Bank was a "Protectorate" under occupation by the GOI.

View attachment 84022​

• From 1994 to 1995, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were both Transitional in Political Status under the 1993 Declaration of Principles (Oslo I Accords) and the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II Accords).
• From 1995 until Present:

§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area A ; Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area B ; Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area C ; Full Israeli civil and security control.
​

Other than the Oslo Accords, the status between the 1988 State of Palestine (in a internally disputed government) the recognized "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" have made no to refrain from jihadist armed struggle, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) openly acknowledge their use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the GOI. This includes the use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of the GOI as a means of solving international territorial disputes concerning the frontiers of the GOI. You may argue the origin of the sovereign boundaries of the GOI, but you cannot argue the existence of the sovereign control over these boundaries or the recognition by other states.

In this regard, the question on "where, when and how" the boundaries came into being is a "dispute" that under International Law must be resolved through peaceful means. It cannot be resolved by the use of Jihad or armed struggle as advocated by HAMAS (Covenant and Policy explanation), the PLO/Palestine (Charter that was never dissolved or amended), or the half dozen or so active affiliated Jihadist and Fedayeen organizations that use “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

Most respectfully,
R

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, Occupied Territory and Sovereign control are two different things.

The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.

Does that mean the borders of the military occupation?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians should be very familiar with both concepts.

• From 1918 to 1920, it was under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.
• From 1949 to 1950, the West Bank was under the effective control of the Jordanians (other Palestinian Jordanians) Occupation by the Hashemite Kingdom.
• From 1950 to 1988, the West Bank was Sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
• From 1949 to 1959, until the dissolution of the All Palestine Government (APG), the Gaza Strip was a Dependent Territory to Egypt.
• From 1959 to 1967, the Gaza Strip was a Protectorate under an Egyptian Military Governorship.
• From 1967 to 2005, the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the Government of Israel (GOI):

§ From 1967 to 1988 the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the GOI as a "Dependent Territory" (a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state yet remains politically outside of the controlling state's integral area.).
§ From 1988 to 2005 after the Declaration of Independence by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), acting as the recognized "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," was under the effective control of the GOI over the Gaza Strip as an Occupied "Protectorate" (a state that is controlled and protected by another state).
§ From 2005 until present, the Gaza Strip is a internally disputed government in a declared Jihadi conflict with the GOI. The GOI has effectively relinquished ground control to the Gaza Strip in 2005.
​

• From 1967 to 1988, the the West Bank was under the GOI effective control of sovereign Jordanian territory until it was politically abandon.
• From 1988 to 1994, the West Bank was a "Protectorate" under occupation by the GOI.

View attachment 84022​

• From 1994 to 1995, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were both Transitional in Political Status under the 1993 Declaration of Principles (Oslo I Accords) and the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II Accords).
• From 1995 until Present:

§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area A ; Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area B ; Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of Area C ; Full Israeli civil and security control.
​

Other than the Oslo Accords, the status between the 1988 State of Palestine (in a internally disputed government) the recognized "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" have made no to refrain from jihadist armed struggle, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) openly acknowledge their use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the GOI. This includes the use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of the GOI as a means of solving international territorial disputes concerning the frontiers of the GOI. You may argue the origin of the sovereign boundaries of the GOI, but you cannot argue the existence of the sovereign control over these boundaries or the recognition by other states.

In this regard, the question on "where, when and how" the boundaries came into being is a "dispute" that under International Law must be resolved through peaceful means. It cannot be resolved by the use of Jihad or armed struggle as advocated by HAMAS (Covenant and Policy explanation), the PLO/Palestine (Charter that was never dissolved or amended), or the half dozen or so active affiliated Jihadist and Fedayeen organizations that use “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

Most respectfully,
R

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

First you need to define these universal and inalienable rights and the dates of their implementation. Without this they are meaningless babble with no meaning.

Because they were the borders of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE and not the nation of palestine, and this has been proven to you thousands of times and still you act like a moron. Denying the full text of the treaty because it destroys your POV, and repeatedly using your version of accounts because you wont admit you are wrong.



YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT YOUR IMMATURE PETULANT SCREECHINGS TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE AND EVEN THEY ARE FAST BEING WHITTLED AWAY TO NOTHING.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,

2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.

10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

(COMMENT)

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights (Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East) .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage (not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor) has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,

2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.

10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

(COMMENT)

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights (Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East) .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage (not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor) has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...

P F Tinmore, et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,

2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.

10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

(COMMENT)

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights (Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East) .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage (not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor) has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights (Part "A" being the UDHR) uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.

Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people" --- as opposed to "peoples."

Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A

This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.

Jane Mairs, Director of English language Learning Publishing
ASK THE EDITOR:

What is the difference between people and peoples?
Monday June 16th 2014

However, people can also mean “all or most humans,” or “all humans of a particular type,” as in these examples:

1. He doesn't care what people think of him. (people=all people)
2. Young people carry their mobile phones everywhere. (young people=all or nearly all young people)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,

2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.

10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

(COMMENT)

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights (Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East) .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage (not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor) has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?

Only in your twisted brain, and once again you deflect because you have been defeated and soundly beaten by your opponent. The term is used in the same way in both contexts, unless you can show the difference ? In doing so you will have to admit that you want to remove the Jews inalienable rights and theei legal, moral, religious and human rights as well.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...

P F Tinmore, et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,

2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.

10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

(COMMENT)

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights (Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East) .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage (not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor) has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights (Part "A" being the UDHR) uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.

Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people" --- as opposed to "peoples."

Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A

This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.

Jane Mairs, Director of English language Learning Publishing
ASK THE EDITOR:

What is the difference between people and peoples?
Monday June 16th 2014

However, people can also mean “all or most humans,” or “all humans of a particular type,” as in these examples:

1. He doesn't care what people think of him. (people=all people)
2. Young people carry their mobile phones everywhere. (young people=all or nearly all young people)

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a world of difference between people and peoples. That is why they use such an odd term when discussing universal rights. You are just conflating the terms to confuse the issues.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...

P F Tinmore, et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,

2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.

10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

(COMMENT)

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights (Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East) .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage (not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor) has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights (Part "A" being the UDHR) uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.

Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people" --- as opposed to "peoples."

Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A

This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.

Jane Mairs, Director of English language Learning Publishing
ASK THE EDITOR:

What is the difference between people and peoples?
Monday June 16th 2014

However, people can also mean “all or most humans,” or “all humans of a particular type,” as in these examples:

1. He doesn't care what people think of him. (people=all people)
2. Young people carry their mobile phones everywhere. (young people=all or nearly all young people)

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a world of difference between people and peoples. That is why they use such an odd term when discussing universal rights. You are just conflating the terms to confuse the issues.

Then you will have no problem in showing what the difference is, or are you just another of your deflections because you have lost yet another argument ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OMG ... If you are going to make a substantive point. Make it.

This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.

Jane Mairs, Director of English language Learning Publishing
ASK THE EDITOR:

What is the difference between people and peoples?
Monday June 16th 2014

However, people can also mean “all or most humans,” or “all humans of a particular type,” as in these examples:

1. He doesn't care what people think of him. (people=all people)
2. Young people carry their mobile phones everywhere. (young people=all or nearly all young people)

There is a world of difference between people and peoples. That is why they use such an odd term when discussing universal rights. You are just conflating the terms to confuse the issues.

(COMMENT)

Yes I understand completely. I think I gave you a source. The selection I made (between using "people" and "peoples") was determined by the source and not by me individually.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?

You asked a question and I answered, in Posting #511, exactly where (complete with links) I derived that word, and that you were mistaken in your observation.

I am again asking for your point.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Looks like for the last 100 posts or so this thread has gotten significantly off topic so we need a course correction, here is the OP - let's get back to it or...at least a little closer

This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
"The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine." Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...

P F Tinmore, et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,

2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.

10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.

What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?

(COMMENT)

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights (Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East) .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage (not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor) has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights (Part "A" being the UDHR) uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.

Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people" --- as opposed to "peoples."

Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A

This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.

Jane Mairs, Director of English language Learning Publishing
ASK THE EDITOR:

What is the difference between people and peoples?
Monday June 16th 2014

However, people can also mean “all or most humans,” or “all humans of a particular type,” as in these examples:

1. He doesn't care what people think of him. (people=all people)
2. Young people carry their mobile phones everywhere. (young people=all or nearly all young people)

Most Respectfully,
R

I moved this discussion to here:

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[Challenger]

October was a busy month for the Zionist colonists carrying out their program of extermination and ethnic cleansing. Let’s look at one of the biggest Zionist massacres; at Al Dawayima, west of Hebron.

Just so we can’t be accused of using “biased” information, here’s an eye-witness account from a Zionist with a conscience (there weren’t many around then, or now for that matter, but there were a few) translated from the original Israeli (emphasis mine):

“To comrade Eliezer Peri, good day,

Today I have read the editorial of “Al Hamishmar” where the question of our army’s conduct was aired, the army which conquers all but its own desires.

A testimony provided to me by an officer who was in Al Dawayima the day after its conquering: The soldier is one of ours, intellectual, reliable, in all 100%. He had confided in me out of a need to unload the heaviness of his soul from the horror of the recognition that such level of barbarism can be reached by our educated and cultured people. He confided in me because not many are the hearts today who are able to listen.

There was no battle and no resistance. The first conquerors killed from eighty to a hundred Arabs [including] women and children. The children were killed by smashing of their skulls with sticks.

There was not a house without dead. The second wave of the [Israeli] army was a platoon that the soldier giving testimony belongs to.

In the town were left male and female Arabs, who were put into houses and were then locked in without receiving food or drink. Later explosive engineers came to blow up houses. One commander ordered an engineer to put two elderly women into the house that was to be blown up. The engineer refused and said he is willing to receive orders only from his [own] commander. So then [his] commander ordered the soldiers to put the women in and the evil deed was performed.


One soldier boasted that he raped an Arab woman and afterwards shot her. An Arab woman with a days-old infant was used for cleaning the back yard where the soldiers eat. She serviced them for a day or two, after which they shot her and the infant. The soldier tells that the commanders, who are cultured and polite, considered good guys in society have become vile murderers, and this occurs not in the storm of battle and heated response, but rather from a system of expulsion and destruction.

The fewer Arabs remain – the better. This principle is the main political motive of [the] expulsions and acts of horror which no-one objects to, not in the field command nor amongst the highest military command. I myself was at the front for two weeks and heard boasting stories of soldiers and commanders, of how they excelled in the acts of hunting and “fucking” [sic]. To fuck an Arab, just like that, and in any circumstance, is considered an impressive mission and there is competition on winning this [trophy].

We find ourselves in a conundrum. To shout this out in the press will mean to assist the Arab League, which our representatives deny all complaints of. To not react would mean solidarity with moral corruption. The soldier told me that Deir Yassin [another massacre, by Irgun militants, April 1948] is not the peak of hooliganism. Is it possible to shout about Deir Yassin and be silent about something much worse?

It is necessary to initiate a scandal in the internal channels, to insist upon an internal investigation and punish the culprits. And first of all it is necessary to create in the military a special unit for the restraint of the army. I myself accuse first of all the government, which doesn’t seem to have any interest to fight the phenomena and perhaps even encourages them indirectly. The fact of not-acting is in itself encouragement. My commander told me that there is an unwritten order to not take prisoners of war, and the interpretation of “prisoner” is individually given by each soldier and commander. A prisoner can be an Arab man, woman or child. This was not only done at the exhibition windows [major Palestinian towns] such as Majdal and Nazareth.

I write this to you so that in the editorial and in the party the truth will be known and something effective would be done. At least let them not indulge in phony diplomacy which covers up for blood and murder, and to the extent possible, also the paper must not let this pass in silence.

Kaplan”


סיפורה של שבירת שתיקה בת 68 שנים


more to follow.

 

[Hollie]

October was a busy month for the Zionist colonists carrying out their program of extermination and ethnic cleansing. Let’s look at one of the biggest Zionist massacres; at Al Dawayima, west of Hebron.

Just so we can’t be accused of using “biased” information, here’s an eye-witness account from a Zionist with a conscience (there weren’t many around then, or now for that matter, but there were a few) translated from the original Israeli (emphasis mine):

“To comrade Eliezer Peri, good day,

Today I have read the editorial of “Al Hamishmar” where the question of our army’s conduct was aired, the army which conquers all but its own desires.

A testimony provided to me by an officer who was in Al Dawayima the day after its conquering: The soldier is one of ours, intellectual, reliable, in all 100%. He had confided in me out of a need to unload the heaviness of his soul from the horror of the recognition that such level of barbarism can be reached by our educated and cultured people. He confided in me because not many are the hearts today who are able to listen.

There was no battle and no resistance. The first conquerors killed from eighty to a hundred Arabs [including] women and children. The children were killed by smashing of their skulls with sticks.

There was not a house without dead. The second wave of the [Israeli] army was a platoon that the soldier giving testimony belongs to.

In the town were left male and female Arabs, who were put into houses and were then locked in without receiving food or drink. Later explosive engineers came to blow up houses. One commander ordered an engineer to put two elderly women into the house that was to be blown up. The engineer refused and said he is willing to receive orders only from his [own] commander. So then [his] commander ordered the soldiers to put the women in and the evil deed was performed.


One soldier boasted that he raped an Arab woman and afterwards shot her. An Arab woman with a days-old infant was used for cleaning the back yard where the soldiers eat. She serviced them for a day or two, after which they shot her and the infant. The soldier tells that the commanders, who are cultured and polite, considered good guys in society have become vile murderers, and this occurs not in the storm of battle and heated response, but rather from a system of expulsion and destruction.

The fewer Arabs remain – the better. This principle is the main political motive of [the] expulsions and acts of horror which no-one objects to, not in the field command nor amongst the highest military command. I myself was at the front for two weeks and heard boasting stories of soldiers and commanders, of how they excelled in the acts of hunting and “fucking” [sic]. To fuck an Arab, just like that, and in any circumstance, is considered an impressive mission and there is competition on winning this [trophy].

We find ourselves in a conundrum. To shout this out in the press will mean to assist the Arab League, which our representatives deny all complaints of. To not react would mean solidarity with moral corruption. The soldier told me that Deir Yassin [another massacre, by Irgun militants, April 1948] is not the peak of hooliganism. Is it possible to shout about Deir Yassin and be silent about something much worse?

It is necessary to initiate a scandal in the internal channels, to insist upon an internal investigation and punish the culprits. And first of all it is necessary to create in the military a special unit for the restraint of the army. I myself accuse first of all the government, which doesn’t seem to have any interest to fight the phenomena and perhaps even encourages them indirectly. The fact of not-acting is in itself encouragement. My commander told me that there is an unwritten order to not take prisoners of war, and the interpretation of “prisoner” is individually given by each soldier and commander. A prisoner can be an Arab man, woman or child. This was not only done at the exhibition windows [major Palestinian towns] such as Majdal and Nazareth.

I write this to you so that in the editorial and in the party the truth will be known and something effective would be done. At least let them not indulge in phony diplomacy which covers up for blood and murder, and to the extent possible, also the paper must not let this pass in silence.

Kaplan”


סיפורה של שבירת שתיקה בת 68 שנים


more to follow.

My goodness. Such an angry Pom Pom flailer for the Islamist Entity™.

You're mindlessy looking for an "ouch" contest. There are cut and paste articles describing islamist atrocities. Consider opening a thread dedicated to cut and paste articles of that type.

 

[Phoenall]

October was a busy month for the Zionist colonists carrying out their program of extermination and ethnic cleansing. Let’s look at one of the biggest Zionist massacres; at Al Dawayima, west of Hebron.

Just so we can’t be accused of using “biased” information, here’s an eye-witness account from a Zionist with a conscience (there weren’t many around then, or now for that matter, but there were a few) translated from the original Israeli (emphasis mine):

“To comrade Eliezer Peri, good day,

Today I have read the editorial of “Al Hamishmar” where the question of our army’s conduct was aired, the army which conquers all but its own desires.

A testimony provided to me by an officer who was in Al Dawayima the day after its conquering: The soldier is one of ours, intellectual, reliable, in all 100%. He had confided in me out of a need to unload the heaviness of his soul from the horror of the recognition that such level of barbarism can be reached by our educated and cultured people. He confided in me because not many are the hearts today who are able to listen.

There was no battle and no resistance. The first conquerors killed from eighty to a hundred Arabs [including] women and children. The children were killed by smashing of their skulls with sticks.

There was not a house without dead. The second wave of the [Israeli] army was a platoon that the soldier giving testimony belongs to.

In the town were left male and female Arabs, who were put into houses and were then locked in without receiving food or drink. Later explosive engineers came to blow up houses. One commander ordered an engineer to put two elderly women into the house that was to be blown up. The engineer refused and said he is willing to receive orders only from his [own] commander. So then [his] commander ordered the soldiers to put the women in and the evil deed was performed.


One soldier boasted that he raped an Arab woman and afterwards shot her. An Arab woman with a days-old infant was used for cleaning the back yard where the soldiers eat. She serviced them for a day or two, after which they shot her and the infant. The soldier tells that the commanders, who are cultured and polite, considered good guys in society have become vile murderers, and this occurs not in the storm of battle and heated response, but rather from a system of expulsion and destruction.

The fewer Arabs remain – the better. This principle is the main political motive of [the] expulsions and acts of horror which no-one objects to, not in the field command nor amongst the highest military command. I myself was at the front for two weeks and heard boasting stories of soldiers and commanders, of how they excelled in the acts of hunting and “fucking” [sic]. To fuck an Arab, just like that, and in any circumstance, is considered an impressive mission and there is competition on winning this [trophy].

We find ourselves in a conundrum. To shout this out in the press will mean to assist the Arab League, which our representatives deny all complaints of. To not react would mean solidarity with moral corruption. The soldier told me that Deir Yassin [another massacre, by Irgun militants, April 1948] is not the peak of hooliganism. Is it possible to shout about Deir Yassin and be silent about something much worse?

It is necessary to initiate a scandal in the internal channels, to insist upon an internal investigation and punish the culprits. And first of all it is necessary to create in the military a special unit for the restraint of the army. I myself accuse first of all the government, which doesn’t seem to have any interest to fight the phenomena and perhaps even encourages them indirectly. The fact of not-acting is in itself encouragement. My commander told me that there is an unwritten order to not take prisoners of war, and the interpretation of “prisoner” is individually given by each soldier and commander. A prisoner can be an Arab man, woman or child. This was not only done at the exhibition windows [major Palestinian towns] such as Majdal and Nazareth.

I write this to you so that in the editorial and in the party the truth will be known and something effective would be done. At least let them not indulge in phony diplomacy which covers up for blood and murder, and to the extent possible, also the paper must not let this pass in silence.

Kaplan”


סיפורה של שבירת שתיקה בת 68 שנים


more to follow.

Disputed figures as a search uncovers this

Lieutenant-General John Bagot Glubb, the British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion stated the numbers were much smaller, citing a UN report for a figure of 30 women and children killed.



But once again rat boy finds a singular episode and tries to imply that this was the common practise at that time. Will he accept the torture, rape, defilement and subsequebt cannibalism of two israeli soldiers as being indicative of common arab muslim behaviour ?