Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore,

You are lying. You did not read 17 pages in three minutes.

(COMMENT)

I somehow seem to think that this historic article is more than five years old.
I think the last 'comment' to Least we Forget was in 2015?
And I'm not sure that LWF was the original source of the material. I think this was the source of some Maps I've used.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore,

You are lying. You did not read 17 pages in three minutes.

(COMMENT)

I somehow seem to think that this historic article is more than five years old.
I think the last 'comment' to Least we Forget was in 2015?
And I'm not sure that LWF was the original source of the material. I think this was the source of some Maps I've used.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. Good read.

As Simple As A, B, and C - BLOG & NEWS-ON-WIRE - 1948

The Link - 1948

 

[toomuchtime_]

So what this video is saying is that peace, prosperity and nationhood for the so called Palestinians is simply not possible.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding law; it never went into force. Whereas the:

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 entered into force 23 March 1976,​

The Right of Return was replaced by Articles 12 and 13 of the CCPR, and presents an entirely different argument.

...Regaurding the video...

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Arab Palestinian cite the UDHR as a life preserver; trying to imply it is Customary Law.

Article 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, also says that:

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.​

In the case of Article 49, relative to the Arab Palestinians the:

◈ The issues relating to the security of the population still demand the partial evacuation.

◈ The issues relating to the imperative military reasons still demand partial evacuation.​

On 6 February 1948, a communique was forwarded to the Secretary-General by the Representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC). This communique stated that the AHC cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. The AHC considers that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation, therefore, expects that the duty of the United Nations is to remove the said aggression and stop that invasion. The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “ The communique also included these salient points:

◈ The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.

◈ The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.

◈ It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.

◈ The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success. It will be far better for the eclipsed prestige of this organization not to start on this adventure.

◈ The United Nations prestige will be better served by abandoning, not enforcing such an injustice.

◈ The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

The AHC feelings expressed here were not just paper threats, but represent the formal initiation of hostilities by the Arab Palestinian if the UN continues to attempt implementation of the Resolution A/RES/181 (II) and if the Jewish immigrants attempt, through the Right of Self-Determination, create a Jewish State. And these coercive threats to peace have been reiterated in many forms and implemented in deadly fashion literally thousands of times over the last seven decades. THIS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH REASON TO MAINTAIN THE SEPARATION.

Finally, the little video starts-off with basically citing criteria from the CERI (Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions) as if it were "law." CERI criteria are NOT LAW. It uses a set of criteria that would essentially continue the role of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) into the future. It is in no way represents the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that applies to every other refugee situation throughout the rest of the world. For example:

◈ It does not mean that the Palestinian Displaced, and descendants of Palestinian males, including legally adopted children, are true refugees.

◈ It does not mean that any Palestinian Displaced, under the protection of another country is a true refugee.​

And one more thing... To be a true refugee under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the Arab Palestinian must NOT be:

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

So, in essence, any Arab Palestinian that has committed an offense that was solely intended to harm the Occupying Power inflicted seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them is NOT a true refugee anymore.

OK, I guess I've said enough about this little piece of propaganda.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding law; it never went into force. Whereas the:

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 entered into force 23 March 1976,​

The Right of Return was replaced by Articles 12 and 13 of the CCPR, and presents an entirely different argument.

...Regaurding the video...

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Arab Palestinian cite the UDHR as a life preserver; trying to imply it is Customary Law.

Article 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, also says that:

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.​

In the case of Article 49, relative to the Arab Palestinians the:

◈ The issues relating to the security of the population still demand the partial evacuation.

◈ The issues relating to the imperative military reasons still demand partial evacuation.​

On 6 February 1948, a communique was forwarded to the Secretary-General by the Representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC). This communique stated that the AHC cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. The AHC considers that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation, therefore, expects that the duty of the United Nations is to remove the said aggression and stop that invasion. The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “ The communique also included these salient points:

◈ The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.

◈ The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.

◈ It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.

◈ The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success. It will be far better for the eclipsed prestige of this organization not to start on this adventure.

◈ The United Nations prestige will be better served by abandoning, not enforcing such an injustice.

◈ The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

The AHC feelings expressed here were not just paper threats, but represent the formal initiation of hostilities by the Arab Palestinian if the UN continues to attempt implementation of the Resolution A/RES/181 (II) and if the Jewish immigrants attempt, through the Right of Self-Determination, create a Jewish State. And these coercive threats to peace have been reiterated in many forms and implemented in deadly fashion literally thousands of times over the last seven decades. THIS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH REASON TO MAINTAIN THE SEPARATION.

Finally, the little video starts-off with basically citing criteria from the CERI (Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions) as if it were "law." CERI criteria are NOT LAW. It uses a set of criteria that would essentially continue the role of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) into the future. It is in no way represents the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that applies to every other refugee situation throughout the rest of the world. For example:

◈ It does not mean that the Palestinian Displaced, and descendants of Palestinian males, including legally adopted children, are true refugees.

◈ It does not mean that any Palestinian Displaced, under the protection of another country is a true refugee.​

And one more thing... To be a true refugee under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the Arab Palestinian must NOT be:

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

So, in essence, any Arab Palestinian that has committed an offense that was solely intended to harm the Occupying Power inflicted seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them is NOT a true refugee anymore.

OK, I guess I've said enough about this little piece of propaganda.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all that negates the right to return?

Why do you call Palestinian self defense hostilities?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Representative Rashida Tlaib joined the Climate Strike on Friday and shared this wonderful photo from her Michigan district with the message "We have the right to breathe!"

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you can't seem to fit the logic together.

What part of all that negates the right to return?

Why do you call Palestinian self defense hostilities?

(COMMENT)

Once I determine that none of the citations are proven invalid, you understand that the concept behind the "Right" is fallacious.

Once I determined that there is no validity to the claim that anything is being "defended;" but rather the forceful attempt to fraudulently take something that was not theirs, to begin with, the logic falls in place as discussed in Posting #4.

All people have the "Right of Self-Defense."

IF the Israelis have Sovereign Territory and some other entity threatens that Sovereignty -
THEN Israel hold the "Right of Self-Defense" in the protection and security of that Sovereignty.

IF the Arab Palestinians have no Sovereignty -
THEN the Arab Palestinians are on the "Offense" and NOT the "Defense."​

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

The Arab Palestinians have the "Right to Self-Defense." The questions are:

What are Arab Palestinians defending?

What sovereignty (1) do Arab Palestinians have? (Some territorial integrity they have sole power or authority.)

What sovereignty (2) was taken from Arab Palestinians? (Some territorial integrity they had sole power or authority but that the Israelis had taken from them.)
​

It cannot be either the West Bank - including Jerusalem - and the Gaza Strip...

The West Bank and Jerusalem were acquired by the Israelis from the Jordanians.

The Gaza Strip was acquired from the Egyptian Military Governorship.​

I ask this because I have not found an Arab Palestinian yet, who can answer: What are they fighting for in the defense role?




Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you can't seem to fit the logic together.

What part of all that negates the right to return?

Why do you call Palestinian self defense hostilities?

(COMMENT)

Once I determine that none of the citations are proven invalid, you understand that the concept behind the "Right" is fallacious.

Once I determined that there is no validity to the claim that anything is being "defended;" but rather the forceful attempt to fraudulently take something that was not theirs, to begin with, the logic falls in place as discussed in Posting #4.

All people have the "Right of Self-Defense."

IF the Israelis have Sovereign Territory and some other entity threatens that Sovereignty -
THEN Israel hold the "Right of Self-Defense" in the protection and security of that Sovereignty.

IF the Arab Palestinians have no Sovereignty -
THEN the Arab Palestinians are on the "Offense" and NOT the "Defense."​

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

The Arab Palestinians have the "Right to Self-Defense." The questions are:

What are Arab Palestinians defending?

What sovereignty (1) do Arab Palestinians have? (Some territorial integrity they have sole power or authority.)

What sovereignty (2) was taken from Arab Palestinians? (Some territorial integrity they had sole power or authority but that the Israelis had taken from them.)
​

It cannot be either the West Bank - including Jerusalem - and the Gaza Strip...

The West Bank and Jerusalem were acquired by the Israelis from the Jordanians.

The Gaza Strip was acquired from the Egyptian Military Governorship.​

I ask this because I have not found an Arab Palestinian yet, who can answer: What are they fighting for in the defense role?




Most Respectfully,
R

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Egypt and Jordan have nothing to do with Palestine, They are separate countries.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Here is a beautiful picture from #Gaza of a Palestinian child selling strawberries and green peas near the seaport.

 

[P F Tinmore]

By Rana Ramlawi.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Another bumper sticker?

(COMMENT)

The refusal of the Arab Palestinians to recognize the Self-Determination to establish its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government IS NOT an excuse to trample the rights of the Jewish People to create the State of Israel.

No expression of threats, hostile intent, Jihadist and Fedayeen babble, and the blackmail with coercion against regional peace trumps the right of the Jewish People to the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.

Unremarked!

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Egypt and Jordan have nothing to do with Palestine, They are separate countries.

(COMMENT)

The 1948 War of Independence was a military confrontation between the forces of Israel and the forces of the Arab League. The 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 YomKipper War were extensions of the War that was under Armistice. The Arab League occupied the UN Trustee Territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip until the threat of Invasion - at which point the Israeli Forces pursued the Arab League to the agreed-upon boundaries. Both Egypt and Jordan eventually made peace with Israel; without prejudice to the Arab Palestinian.

You keep thinking that the Arab Palestinians had some stake in the outcome. They did not. The conflict was between the State of Israel and the Arab League. The Treaties were made between Israel and the individual states of the Arab League, where necessary.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Another bumper sticker?

(COMMENT)

The refusal of the Arab Palestinians to recognize the Self-Determination to establish its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government IS NOT an excuse to trample the rights of the Jewish People to create the State of Israel.

No expression of threats, hostile intent, Jihadist and Fedayeen babble, and the blackmail with coercion against regional peace trumps the right of the Jewish People to the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.

Unremarked!

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Egypt and Jordan have nothing to do with Palestine, They are separate countries.

(COMMENT)

The 1948 War of Independence was a military confrontation between the forces of Israel and the forces of the Arab League. The 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 YomKipper War were extensions of the War that was under Armistice. The Arab League occupied the UN Trustee Territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip until the threat of Invasion - at which point the Israeli Forces pursued the Arab League to the agreed-upon boundaries. Both Egypt and Jordan eventually made peace with Israel; without prejudice to the Arab Palestinian.

You keep thinking that the Arab Palestinians had some stake in the outcome. They did not. The conflict was between the State of Israel and the Arab League. The Treaties were made between Israel and the individual states of the Arab League, where necessary.


Most Respectfully,
R

Still has nothing to do with Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

You are purposely avoiding the truth.

IF you do not think that the fact the Arab League interventionist prevented the Arab Palestinians from establishing control over the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, THEN you are being disingenuous.

Still has nothing to do with Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian only perceives what supports their position.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 1948 War of Independence was a military confrontation between the forces of Israel and the forces of the Arab League.

Palestine did not join the Arab League until 1974.

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding law; it never went into force. Whereas the:

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 entered into force 23 March 1976,​

The Right of Return was replaced by Articles 12 and 13 of the CCPR, and presents an entirely different argument.

...Regaurding the video...

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Arab Palestinian cite the UDHR as a life preserver; trying to imply it is Customary Law.

Article 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, also says that:

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.​

In the case of Article 49, relative to the Arab Palestinians the:

◈ The issues relating to the security of the population still demand the partial evacuation.

◈ The issues relating to the imperative military reasons still demand partial evacuation.​

On 6 February 1948, a communique was forwarded to the Secretary-General by the Representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC). This communique stated that the AHC cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. The AHC considers that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation, therefore, expects that the duty of the United Nations is to remove the said aggression and stop that invasion. The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “ The communique also included these salient points:

◈ The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.

◈ The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.

◈ It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.

◈ The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success. It will be far better for the eclipsed prestige of this organization not to start on this adventure.

◈ The United Nations prestige will be better served by abandoning, not enforcing such an injustice.

◈ The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

The AHC feelings expressed here were not just paper threats, but represent the formal initiation of hostilities by the Arab Palestinian if the UN continues to attempt implementation of the Resolution A/RES/181 (II) and if the Jewish immigrants attempt, through the Right of Self-Determination, create a Jewish State. And these coercive threats to peace have been reiterated in many forms and implemented in deadly fashion literally thousands of times over the last seven decades. THIS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH REASON TO MAINTAIN THE SEPARATION.

Finally, the little video starts-off with basically citing criteria from the CERI (Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions) as if it were "law." CERI criteria are NOT LAW. It uses a set of criteria that would essentially continue the role of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) into the future. It is in no way represents the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that applies to every other refugee situation throughout the rest of the world. For example:

◈ It does not mean that the Palestinian Displaced, and descendants of Palestinian males, including legally adopted children, are true refugees.

◈ It does not mean that any Palestinian Displaced, under the protection of another country is a true refugee.​

And one more thing... To be a true refugee under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the Arab Palestinian must NOT be:

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

◈ An Arab Palestinian that has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

So, in essence, any Arab Palestinian that has committed an offense that was solely intended to harm the Occupying Power inflicted seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them is NOT a true refugee anymore.

OK, I guess I've said enough about this little piece of propaganda.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all that negates the right to return?

Why do you call Palestinian self defense hostilities?

What self defence are you talking about Tinmore ? You never answered my question. Give me SPECIFIC incidents where Palestinians defended themselves ..

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you can't seem to fit the logic together.

What part of all that negates the right to return?

Why do you call Palestinian self defense hostilities?

(COMMENT)

Once I determine that none of the citations are proven invalid, you understand that the concept behind the "Right" is fallacious.

Once I determined that there is no validity to the claim that anything is being "defended;" but rather the forceful attempt to fraudulently take something that was not theirs, to begin with, the logic falls in place as discussed in Posting #4.

All people have the "Right of Self-Defense."

IF the Israelis have Sovereign Territory and some other entity threatens that Sovereignty -
THEN Israel hold the "Right of Self-Defense" in the protection and security of that Sovereignty.

IF the Arab Palestinians have no Sovereignty -
THEN the Arab Palestinians are on the "Offense" and NOT the "Defense."​

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

The Arab Palestinians have the "Right to Self-Defense." The questions are:

What are Arab Palestinians defending?

What sovereignty (1) do Arab Palestinians have? (Some territorial integrity they have sole power or authority.)

What sovereignty (2) was taken from Arab Palestinians? (Some territorial integrity they had sole power or authority but that the Israelis had taken from them.)
​

It cannot be either the West Bank - including Jerusalem - and the Gaza Strip...

The West Bank and Jerusalem were acquired by the Israelis from the Jordanians.

The Gaza Strip was acquired from the Egyptian Military Governorship.​

I ask this because I have not found an Arab Palestinian yet, who can answer: What are they fighting for in the defense role?




Most Respectfully,
R

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Egypt and Jordan have nothing to do with Palestine, They are separate countries.

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you can't seem to fit the logic together.

What part of all that negates the right to return?

Why do you call Palestinian self defense hostilities?

(COMMENT)

Once I determine that none of the citations are proven invalid, you understand that the concept behind the "Right" is fallacious.

Once I determined that there is no validity to the claim that anything is being "defended;" but rather the forceful attempt to fraudulently take something that was not theirs, to begin with, the logic falls in place as discussed in Posting #4.

All people have the "Right of Self-Defense."

IF the Israelis have Sovereign Territory and some other entity threatens that Sovereignty -
THEN Israel hold the "Right of Self-Defense" in the protection and security of that Sovereignty.

IF the Arab Palestinians have no Sovereignty -
THEN the Arab Palestinians are on the "Offense" and NOT the "Defense."​

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

The Arab Palestinians have the "Right to Self-Defense." The questions are:

What are Arab Palestinians defending?

What sovereignty (1) do Arab Palestinians have? (Some territorial integrity they have sole power or authority.)

What sovereignty (2) was taken from Arab Palestinians? (Some territorial integrity they had sole power or authority but that the Israelis had taken from them.)
​

It cannot be either the West Bank - including Jerusalem - and the Gaza Strip...

The West Bank and Jerusalem were acquired by the Israelis from the Jordanians.

The Gaza Strip was acquired from the Egyptian Military Governorship.​

I ask this because I have not found an Arab Palestinian yet, who can answer: What are they fighting for in the defense role?




Most Respectfully,
R

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Egypt and Jordan have nothing to do with Palestine, They are separate countries.

What about his post is BS Tinmore? He posted links with factual evidence , what did you post? All you got are propaganda videos ...