Palestine Today

[Hollie]

The case of Ahed Tamimi is deeply disturbing, but not for the reasons you think - BICOM

The reality is far more disturbing. Ahed’s family has a long history of involvement in terrorism. Her aunt was part of the terrorist cell that carried out a suicide bombing in a pizza restaurant in Jerusalem in August 2001 that killed 15 people, including 7 children, and wounded 130. Most of her direct and extended family have been convicted of terrorism offences.

Ahed grew up in an environment that normalised, glorified and celebrated brutal violence against Israelis. Her parents decided long ago to deploy their young children in the service of their dangerous games. From a very young age Ahed was sent out to take part in violent attacks on Israeli soldiers as her parents encouraged her and filmed her. As a young child, she was in no position to consent to being used in this way and the constant filming and grooming to perform violent attacks, is nothing short of abusive.

Instead of shunning and condemning this abhorrent behaviour, a procession of journalists and activists has visited the Tamimi household to pay tribute. Before her arrest, a media circus followed her exploits with glee because she gave them the pictures they wanted.

 

[rylah]

Barghouti: Cambridge's Interference in BDS Event is 'Ludicrous'

In other words BDS-holes' hate speech is threatened
when the moderator is not of their own group.

Barghouti is not careful about what he says.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And this is were your half truths and slanted rhetoric confuses people. Keeping in mind that today, this type of raw rhetoric is propaganda which is injected and likely to provoke (may be even encourage) breach of the peace or violence.

(1968 - 50 = 1918)

From 1918 (the Treaty of Mudros) → through → 1920 (just after the San Remo Convention) the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine were applied → were first placed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and then placed under a Civil Administration (1920 thru 1948).

During the period of Civil Administration, Palestine was a legal entity ⇒ but not a sovereign state or self-governing. Palestine was a territory administered under mandate by the United Kingdom; acting as the Government of Palestine. The Government of Palestine did not consider British Administration supported by British Forces as actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The Forces were in support of the Civil Administration. Thus the Government of Palestine was not set within a legally defined set of condition that met the International definition of "occupation."

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - The Hague Regulations, 18 October 1907:

Article 42:

✪ Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
✪ The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

This is still the legal criteria in force today; over a 100 years later.

The period between 1949 and 1968 (≈ two decades) the Middle East Region - centered on Tel Aviv was in abeyance under the Armistice Arrangements; contemplating a permanent solution.

In 1968, Israeli Forces swept through the West Bank in pursuit of Jordanian Forces that opened indirect fire into Israel. The period between 1968 and 1988 (≈ two decades) Israel Occupied Jordanian Sovereign Territory; not Arab Palestinian autonomous territory. In 1988, Jordan abandon their sovereign holdings of the West Bank and Jerusalem into the only government having effective control: Israel. There was no effective government other than Israel; and no active claim by the previous sovereign.

You can call it what you want. You can fantasize all you want. The fact of the matter is that half a century ago (1968), the Palestinian National Charter was adopted, and established as policy that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

Palestine was occupied for 50 years by then.

(COMMENT)

This suggestion that the territory under discussion was under near continuous occupation by foreign forces is a misrepresentation of the historical record.

This is a very crafty Arab Palestinian slight of hand. It attempts to describe something as factual for the purpose of edification, to shield them from allegations it was an altered recount of reality for the purpose of
inflaming dangerous and hostile emotions --- a form of incitement of hostile acts and repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification (apologie) of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

This suggestion that the territory under discussion was under near continuous occupation by foreign forces is a misrepresentation of the historical record.

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence. When Britain established its Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew its troops leaving behind a few advisors. This was in line with the LoN Covenant. You don't need an army to render administrative assistance and advise.

However, when Britain established its Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military presence. It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence. Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun. To Britain, the change to a Mandate was simply a name change. It still ruled Palestine by military force.

Of course, the Palestinians resisted this occupation and they still do.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When Palestinian Refugees Tell Their Own Stories: The Last Earth by Ramzy Baroud

 

[Hollie]

When Palestinian Refugees Tell Their Own Stories: The Last Earth by Ramzy Baroud

Arabs-Moslems who are three generations removed from your invented “country of Pal’istan” are not “refugees”.

 

[Hollie]

This suggestion that the territory under discussion was under near continuous occupation by foreign forces is a misrepresentation of the historical record.

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence. When Britain established its Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew its troops leaving behind a few advisors. This was in line with the LoN Covenant. You don't need an army to render administrative assistance and advise.

However, when Britain established its Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military presence. It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence. Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun. To Britain, the change to a Mandate was simply a name change. It still ruled Palestine by military force.

Of course, the Palestinians resisted this occupation and they still do.

That’s simply a lot of presuppositional bias on your part.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This suggestion that the territory under discussion was under near continuous occupation by foreign forces is a misrepresentation of the historical record.

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence. When Britain established its Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew its troops leaving behind a few advisors. This was in line with the LoN Covenant. You don't need an army to render administrative assistance and advise.

However, when Britain established its Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military presence. It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence. Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun. To Britain, the change to a Mandate was simply a name change. It still ruled Palestine by military force.

Of course, the Palestinians resisted this occupation and they still do.

That’s simply a lot of presuppositional bias on your part.

Of course you did not refute anything. Just a gripe.

 

[Hollie]

This suggestion that the territory under discussion was under near continuous occupation by foreign forces is a misrepresentation of the historical record.

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence. When Britain established its Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew its troops leaving behind a few advisors. This was in line with the LoN Covenant. You don't need an army to render administrative assistance and advise.

However, when Britain established its Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military presence. It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence. Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun. To Britain, the change to a Mandate was simply a name change. It still ruled Palestine by military force.

Of course, the Palestinians resisted this occupation and they still do.

That’s simply a lot of presuppositional bias on your part.

Of course you did not refute anything. Just a gripe.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

You wrote:

“It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence.”

Link?


You wrote:

“Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.”

Link?

 

[Shusha]

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence.

Exactly. Thus, the achievement of independence by the people for whom that independence was called for can not possibly be seen as an occupation. It is the fulfillment of the Mandate. The Mandate achieved its goal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence.

Exactly. Thus, the achievement of independence by the people for whom that independence was called for can not possibly be seen as an occupation. It is the fulfillment of the Mandate. The Mandate achieved its goal.

The LoN Covenant was referring to the local population not the colonial settlers out of Europe.

 

[Shusha]

The LoN Covenant was referring to the local population not the colonial settlers out of Europe.

The Jewish people, by rights of their long history in the land, were (are) considered by the international community to be the local population. Which is right and fair.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This suggestion that the territory under discussion was under near continuous occupation by foreign forces is a misrepresentation of the historical record.

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence. When Britain established its Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew its troops leaving behind a few advisors. This was in line with the LoN Covenant. You don't need an army to render administrative assistance and advise.

However, when Britain established its Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military presence. It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence. Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun. To Britain, the change to a Mandate was simply a name change. It still ruled Palestine by military force.

Of course, the Palestinians resisted this occupation and they still do.

That’s simply a lot of presuppositional bias on your part.

Of course you did not refute anything. Just a gripe.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

You wrote:

“It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence.”

Link?


You wrote:

“Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.”

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The LoN Covenant was referring to the local population not the colonial settlers out of Europe.

The Jewish people, by rights of their long history in the land, were (are) considered by the international community to be the local population. Which is right and fair.

Pffft, Israeli talking points.

 

[Hollie]

This suggestion that the territory under discussion was under near continuous occupation by foreign forces is a misrepresentation of the historical record.

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence. When Britain established its Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew its troops leaving behind a few advisors. This was in line with the LoN Covenant. You don't need an army to render administrative assistance and advise.

However, when Britain established its Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military presence. It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence. Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun. To Britain, the change to a Mandate was simply a name change. It still ruled Palestine by military force.

Of course, the Palestinians resisted this occupation and they still do.

That’s simply a lot of presuppositional bias on your part.

Of course you did not refute anything. Just a gripe.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

You wrote:

“It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence.”

Link?


You wrote:

“Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.”

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

As expected, you retreat to spam when your statements are unsupportable.

 

[Hollie]

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence.

Exactly. Thus, the achievement of independence by the people for whom that independence was called for can not possibly be seen as an occupation. It is the fulfillment of the Mandate. The Mandate achieved its goal.

The LoN Covenant was referring to the local population not the colonial settlers out of Europe.

Another of your re-written versions of history.

 

[Shusha]

The LoN Covenant was referring to the local population not the colonial settlers out of Europe.

The Jewish people, by rights of their long history in the land, were (are) considered by the international community to be the local population. Which is right and fair.

Pffft, Israeli talking points.

Perfectly valid Israeli talking points. Your entire premise, and the Arab Palestinian premise, is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-governance in their historic homeland. That stance is morally and legally invalid. By any objective measure.

From a legal perspective, the Mandate for Palestine defined the local people for whom advice and administration was to be provided -- the Jewish people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No it isn't. The LoN Covenant called for the Mandates to render administrative assistance and advice to bring the people to independence. When Britain established its Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew its troops leaving behind a few advisors. This was in line with the LoN Covenant. You don't need an army to render administrative assistance and advise.

However, when Britain established its Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military presence. It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence. Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun. To Britain, the change to a Mandate was simply a name change. It still ruled Palestine by military force.

Of course, the Palestinians resisted this occupation and they still do.

That’s simply a lot of presuppositional bias on your part.

Of course you did not refute anything. Just a gripe.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

You wrote:

“It had no intention of bringing the people up to speed for independence.”

Link?


You wrote:

“Its plan was to impose a foreign agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.”

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

As expected, you retreat to spam when your statements are unsupportable.

That is why you know so little.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The LoN Covenant was referring to the local population not the colonial settlers out of Europe.

The Jewish people, by rights of their long history in the land, were (are) considered by the international community to be the local population. Which is right and fair.

Pffft, Israeli talking points.

Perfectly valid Israeli talking points. Your entire premise, and the Arab Palestinian premise, is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-governance in their historic homeland. That stance is morally and legally invalid. By any objective measure.

From a legal perspective, the Mandate for Palestine defined the local people for whom advice and administration was to be provided -- the Jewish people.

That is under the unsupportable assumption that the colonial settlers out of Europe actually had ancestors from Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

That is under the unsupportable assumption that the colonial settlers out of Europe actually had ancestors from Palestine.

Well, no. That is YOUR unsupportable assumption that the criteria for self-determination is based on some vague notion of ancestry which you apply only to the Jewish people.