Palestinian Peace Proposal

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

(COMMENT)

Remembering that it is a "self-imposed" limitation that the General Assembly and the Allied Forces need NOT to have impose upon themselves; and could wipe away just as easily. In no way have the Arab contributed to either humanitarian law or principles of international relations in any significant way. Each principle, law, treaty, covention and directive they point to in regards to the "Question of Palestine" is a issue pertaining to Western self-imposed limitations.

I think we agree that on --- established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). Remembering that the State of Israel was an end result of following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN General Assembly [A/RES/181(II)].

This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.

(COMMENT)

Nothing was "affirmed" by the UN Armistice accept for the ceasefire lines at the FEBA and the cessation of hostilities between forces.

Having said that, over time the same lines have been used to establish other meaningful reference points.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

(COMMENT)

Remembering that it is a "self-imposed" limitation that the General Assembly and the Allied Forces need NOT to have impose upon themselves; and could wipe away just as easily. In no way have the Arab contributed to either humanitarian law or principles of international relations in any significant way. Each principle, law, treaty, covention and directive they point to in regards to the "Question of Palestine" is a issue pertaining to Western self-imposed limitations.

I think we agree that on --- established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). Remembering that the State of Israel was an end result of following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN General Assembly [A/RES/181(II)].

This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.

(COMMENT)

Nothing was "affirmed" by the UN Armistice accept for the ceasefire lines at the FEBA and the cessation of hostilities between forces.

Having said that, over time the same lines have been used to establish other meaningful reference points.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

Most Respectfully,
R

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

(COMMENT)

Remembering that it is a "self-imposed" limitation that the General Assembly and the Allied Forces need NOT to have impose upon themselves; and could wipe away just as easily. In no way have the Arab contributed to either humanitarian law or principles of international relations in any significant way. Each principle, law, treaty, covention and directive they point to in regards to the "Question of Palestine" is a issue pertaining to Western self-imposed limitations.

I think we agree that on --- established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). Remembering that the State of Israel was an end result of following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN General Assembly [A/RES/181(II)].

This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.

(COMMENT)

Nothing was "affirmed" by the UN Armistice accept for the ceasefire lines at the FEBA and the cessation of hostilities between forces.

Having said that, over time the same lines have been used to establish other meaningful reference points.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

Most Respectfully,
R

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

No one ever said they don't have a right to complain.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your perspective.

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points. There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories (surrendered by one sovereign to another) must be handled a certain way. There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory. Permanent sovereign control was not an objective.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination (albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs). No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point. However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People. The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic). The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory. The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.

They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

(COMMENT)

The occupied enemy Arab population (not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz) was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories. The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

(COMMENT)

This is, of course, your opinion. Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem. (It did not cut and run as you suggest.) The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.​

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

You don't even have the P as Jordan is in Palestine as well. Read the original LoN Mandate document

What you living in Jordan P "Phoenal because the Palis never did during the time-line you mention,some of course do today after the Zionist Terrorist exported them at GUN point ......between 1947-1949......it saved the Palestinians being Slaughtered.........so today Jordan have a remarkable Palestinian Queen.............

Yes indeed. So tell us why Jordan's Palestinian queen refuses to allow the Palestinians a right of return back to Jordan? Golly gee, is it actually possible Jordan feels relieved having Israel to now deal with their Palestinains?

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your perspective.

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points. There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories (surrendered by one sovereign to another) must be handled a certain way. There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory. Permanent sovereign control was not an objective.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination (albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs). No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point. However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People. The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic). The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory. The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.

They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

(COMMENT)

The occupied enemy Arab population (not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz) was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories. The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

(COMMENT)

This is, of course, your opinion. Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem. (It did not cut and run as you suggest.) The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.​

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

You don't even have the P as Jordan is in Palestine as well. Read the original LoN Mandate document

What you living in Jordan P "Phoenal because the Palis never did during the time-line you mention,some of course do today after the Zionist Terrorist exported them at GUN point ......between 1947-1949......it saved the Palestinians being Slaughtered.........so today Jordan have a remarkable Palestinian Queen.............

Yes indeed. So tell us why Jordan's Palestinian queen refuses to allow the Palestinians a right of return back to Jordan? Golly gee, is it actually possible Jordan feels relieved having Israel to now deal with their Palestinains?

You do understand Rania does not actually rule? It is her husband has his parliament that make the decisions.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you not considering the principle factors.

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies. It was defined by the Allied Powers and delineated by Allied Powers. The citizenship eligibility was defined by the Allied Powers.

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly, in a territory which was under the full powers of legislation and of administration of the Mandatory; selected by the Principal Allied Powers and obligated to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The "in Palestine" phrase --- gives the Arab no special status.

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

• There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
• Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

(COMMENT)

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force. While they want and argue for the "right of Palestinian self-determination," --- they do not actually make allowances to respect the rights of others. In particular --- they have NO respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of other people.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you not considering the principle factors.

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies. It was defined by the Allied Powers and delineated by Allied Powers. The citizenship eligibility was defined by the Allied Powers.

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly, in a territory which was under the full powers of legislation and of administration of the Mandatory; selected by the Principal Allied Powers and obligated to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The "in Palestine" phrase --- gives the Arab no special status.

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

• There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
• Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

(COMMENT)

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force. While they want and argue for the "right of Palestinian self-determination," --- they do not actually make allowances to respect the rights of others. In particular --- they have NO respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of other people.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Speaking of no respect what about all those foreign assholes who drove the Palestinians out of their homes and continue to do so today?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you not considering the principle factors.

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies. It was defined by the Allied Powers and delineated by Allied Powers. The citizenship eligibility was defined by the Allied Powers.

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly, in a territory which was under the full powers of legislation and of administration of the Mandatory; selected by the Principal Allied Powers and obligated to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The "in Palestine" phrase --- gives the Arab no special status.

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

• There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
• Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

(COMMENT)

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force. While they want and argue for the "right of Palestinian self-determination," --- they do not actually make allowances to respect the rights of others. In particular --- they have NO respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of other people.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly,...​

That is a lie.

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. The Avalon Project UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

Palestinian citizens living in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens per resolution 181. This reiterates customary international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing. Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

So, the right to return is imbedded in resolution 181 and international law. It has nothing to do with immigration. And, of course, you believe that resolution 181 is still valid.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And this is another problem.

Ask yourself: When did YOUR family "immigrate" to the US?

In my case, I am second generation American. Obviously my father was first generation, and my grandparents were the Immigrants. As Americans, my father was born in York Run PA in 1917.​

In your eyes --- when does my family convert from foreign immigrants to Americans.

Speaking of no respect what about all those foreign assholes who drove the Palestinians out of their homes and continue to do so today?

(COMMENT)

In general, the immigrant line stops when the first generation is born. All my uncles (first generation Americans) were WWII veterans.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've changed the subject to the "right of return." A different issue.

[QUOTE="RoccoR, post: 11462101, member: 25033"Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly,...

That is a lie.

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. The Avalon Project UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

Palestinian citizens living in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens per resolution 181. This reiterates customary international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing. Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

So, the right to return is imbedded in resolution 181 and international law. It has nothing to do with immigration. And, of course, you believe that resolution 181 is still valid.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

There is a difference between those that departed (for whatever reason) the Territory delineated in Annex A to resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947 before 15 May 1948 --- and those that departed after 15 May 1948 (upon the recognition of independence).

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.​

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; SOURCE: A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948

It should be noted that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entered into force nearly 30 years after the War of Independence (23 March 1976) And nearly a decade after the 1967 Six Day War.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

(COMMENT)

Remembering that it is a "self-imposed" limitation that the General Assembly and the Allied Forces need NOT to have impose upon themselves; and could wipe away just as easily. In no way have the Arab contributed to either humanitarian law or principles of international relations in any significant way. Each principle, law, treaty, covention and directive they point to in regards to the "Question of Palestine" is a issue pertaining to Western self-imposed limitations.

I think we agree that on --- established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). Remembering that the State of Israel was an end result of following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN General Assembly [A/RES/181(II)].

This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.

(COMMENT)

Nothing was "affirmed" by the UN Armistice accept for the ceasefire lines at the FEBA and the cessation of hostilities between forces.

Having said that, over time the same lines have been used to establish other meaningful reference points.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

Most Respectfully,
R

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

Not when they did the same thing in Palestine and called it trans Jordan. Do the Jews have the right to complain about that and the loss of Jewish property in the process ?

You also forget that in 1923 International law was made that granted the Jews and muslims their respective areas of Palestine for national homes. So why do you support the muslim side in this and claim that the Jewish side is illegal ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you not considering the principle factors.

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies. It was defined by the Allied Powers and delineated by Allied Powers. The citizenship eligibility was defined by the Allied Powers.

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly, in a territory which was under the full powers of legislation and of administration of the Mandatory; selected by the Principal Allied Powers and obligated to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The "in Palestine" phrase --- gives the Arab no special status.

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

• There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
• Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

(COMMENT)

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force. While they want and argue for the "right of Palestinian self-determination," --- they do not actually make allowances to respect the rights of others. In particular --- they have NO respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of other people.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Speaking of no respect what about all those foreign assholes who drove the Palestinians out of their homes and continue to do so today?

And what about them, if the arab muslims were not illegally occupying Israeli land then they would not be evicted. How many an produce a valid deed to the property they claim is theirs

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you not considering the principle factors.

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies. It was defined by the Allied Powers and delineated by Allied Powers. The citizenship eligibility was defined by the Allied Powers.

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly, in a territory which was under the full powers of legislation and of administration of the Mandatory; selected by the Principal Allied Powers and obligated to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The "in Palestine" phrase --- gives the Arab no special status.

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

• There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
• Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

(COMMENT)

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force. While they want and argue for the "right of Palestinian self-determination," --- they do not actually make allowances to respect the rights of others. In particular --- they have NO respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of other people.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly,...​

That is a lie.

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. The Avalon Project UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

Palestinian citizens living in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens per resolution 181. This reiterates customary international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing. Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

So, the right to return is imbedded in resolution 181 and international law. It has nothing to do with immigration. And, of course, you believe that resolution 181 is still valid.

NOPE the right of return is only available in those nations that agree and accept it. Also it does not apply to deportees evicted for crimes against the security of the country. So all those Palestinian terrorists do not have a valid claim do they.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you not considering the principle factors.

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies. It was defined by the Allied Powers and delineated by Allied Powers. The citizenship eligibility was defined by the Allied Powers.

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly, in a territory which was under the full powers of legislation and of administration of the Mandatory; selected by the Principal Allied Powers and obligated to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The "in Palestine" phrase --- gives the Arab no special status.

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

• There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
• Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

(COMMENT)

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force. While they want and argue for the "right of Palestinian self-determination," --- they do not actually make allowances to respect the rights of others. In particular --- they have NO respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of other people.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies.​

The Mandate was a temporarily assigned administration. Palestine is the place.

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force.​

Do you mean like the Palestinians want Palestine?

Shame on them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you not considering the principle factors.

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies. It was defined by the Allied Powers and delineated by Allied Powers. The citizenship eligibility was defined by the Allied Powers.

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly, in a territory which was under the full powers of legislation and of administration of the Mandatory; selected by the Principal Allied Powers and obligated to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The "in Palestine" phrase --- gives the Arab no special status.

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

• There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
• Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

(COMMENT)

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force. While they want and argue for the "right of Palestinian self-determination," --- they do not actually make allowances to respect the rights of others. In particular --- they have NO respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of other people.

Most Respectfully,
R​

There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples,...​

Peoples? Hmmm. What does that mean?

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

(COMMENT)

Remembering that it is a "self-imposed" limitation that the General Assembly and the Allied Forces need NOT to have impose upon themselves; and could wipe away just as easily. In no way have the Arab contributed to either humanitarian law or principles of international relations in any significant way. Each principle, law, treaty, covention and directive they point to in regards to the "Question of Palestine" is a issue pertaining to Western self-imposed limitations.

I think we agree that on --- established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). Remembering that the State of Israel was an end result of following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN General Assembly [A/RES/181(II)].

This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.

(COMMENT)

Nothing was "affirmed" by the UN Armistice accept for the ceasefire lines at the FEBA and the cessation of hostilities between forces.

Having said that, over time the same lines have been used to establish other meaningful reference points.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

Most Respectfully,
R

or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.

Not when they did the same thing in Palestine and called it trans Jordan. Do the Jews have the right to complain about that and the loss of Jewish property in the process ?

You also forget that in 1923 International law was made that granted the Jews and muslims their respective areas of Palestine for national homes. So why do you support the muslim side in this and claim that the Jewish side is illegal ?

Palestine was never called Trans-Jordania. Trans-Jordania was a separate territory included in the Mandate, as reported in the Mandatories 1921 Report in a separate section, X. separate from Palestine and whose boundaries are clearly defined:

AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.
​

"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people. It contains a few small towns and large areas of fertile land, producing excellent wheat and barley. The people are partly settled townsmen and agriculturists, partly wandering Bedouin; the latter, however, cultivate areas, more or less fixed, during certain seasons of the year.

When Palestine west of the Jordan was occupied by the British Army and placed under a British military administration, over Trans-Jordania and a large part of Syria there was established an Arab administration, with its capital at Damascus. The ruler was His Highness the Emir Feisal, the third son of H.M. King Hussein, the King of the Hejaz. When Damascus was occupied by French troops in July, 1920, and the Emir Feisal withdrew, it was necessary to adopt fresh measures in Trans-Jordania. I proceeded to the central town of Salt on August 20th, and, at an assembly of notables and sheikhs of the district, announced that His Majesty's Government favoured the establishment of a system of local self- government, assisted by a small number of British officers as advisers.

Local councils were accordingly formed in the various districts, the people not being ready to unite in any form of combined government for Trans-Jordania as a whole. Five British officers were appointed to assist the councils and their officials and to aid in organising a gendarmerie. No British troops were stationed in the district.

It cannot be claimed that the system of administration so set up was satisfactory. The authority of the councils was flouted by large sections of the population; taxes were collected with difficulty; the funds at the disposal of the local authorities were insufficient to ensure the maintenance of order, still less to defray the cost of roads, schools, hospitals, or other improvements for the benefit of the people.

Some progress was beginning, however, to be made when, in the month of November, H.H. the Emir Abdallah, the second son of King Hussein, arrived from the Hejaz at Ma'an, to the south of Trans-Jordania. His purpose was declared to be to restore a Shereefian government in Damascus. His arrival caused much disturbance in the minds of the people of Trans- Jordania and further impaired the authority, already slight, of the local authorities. From Ma'an the Emir proceeded on March 2nd to Amman, a town on the Hejaz Railway to the east of Salt, and there established his headquarters.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies being in Palestine in the month of March, a Conference was held with the Emir, who came to Jerusalem for the purpose. An arrangement was reached by which the Emir undertook to carry on the administration of Trans-Jordania, under the general direction of the High Commissioner of Palestine, as representing the Mandatory Power, and with the assistance of a small number of British officers, for a period of six months pending a definite settlement. Order and public security were to be maintained and there were to be no attacks against Syria. Since that time a close connection has continued between Palestine and Trans-Jordania. British representatives remain in the principal centres.

I paid a visit to Amman on April 18th as the guest of the Emir and explained in an address to the sheikhs and notables the arrangement that had been made. The Emir came to Palestine again in the month of May. The political and technical officers of the Palestine Administration have made frequent visits to Trans-Jordania and have assisted the local officials with their advice. The difficulties of local finance have continued. Order and security are still lacking. A grant-in-aid of £180,000 was, however, voted by Parliament in July for the assistance of Trans-Jordania, and it is hoped that this assistance will enable an effective reserve force of gendarmerie to be established, revenue to be collected and the government of the district to be placed on a sounder footing. The district possesses great agricultural wealth, and the local revenue, if it were collected, would fully meet the local expenditure.

The political and economic connection between Palestine and Trans-Jordania is very close. Trade is active; communications are constant; disturbance in the one area cannot fail to be of detriment to the other; the prevention of raids from east of the Jordan and the preservation of order there are of no small importance to the population on the west. Syria, too, has a close interest in the security of her southern border. If Trans-Jordania became a prey to anarchy, not only her own inhabitants, but also the neighbouring territories, would be sufferers. All of them look to the Mandatory Power to prevent an eventuality which, in default of her influence and authority, might prove not remote. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

No, I don't think you understand what "Palestine" means, as determined by the Allied Powers.

Palestinian is not an Arab Country. It is the territory to which the Mandate applies.

The Mandate was a temporarily assigned administration. Palestine is the place.

(COMMENT)

The territory of Palestine was defined by the Order n Council:

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922

To "mandate" something is to issue and "an official order or commission to do something." It is what the word means. In this case the Mandate was an order adopted by the Council and outlined in a set of provisions. The degree of authority or control to be exercised by the Mandatory varies according to the character of the territory.

NO! The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force.

Do you mean like the Palestinians want Palestine?

Shame on them.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians have no authority to assume a leadership role within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, under the terms of the Unconditional Surrender of the Ottoman Empire.

It is a matter of treaty and self-determination.

Palestine was never called Trans-Jordania. Trans-Jordania was a separate territory included in the Mandate, as reported in the Mandatories 1921 Report in a separate section, X. separate from Palestine and whose boundaries are clearly defined:

AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.
​

"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania.

(COMMENT)

Trans-Jordan was clearly part of the Mandate. It is separate (because it was already promised to the Sharif of Mecca for one of his sons) yes --- but only as far as Article 25 of the Mandate applies. It was partitioned early on with the blessing of the other Allied Powers.

You guys periodically bring this issue up. And each time, I have to explain it again. You must use the interpretation of the Permanent Mandate Commission and not some lame brain pro-Palestinian trying to make some unsubstantiated point.

"INCLUDED" (the very key word here) "in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania." The Arabs have, since the early years of the Mandate, make this suggestion that Trans-Jordania was not part of the Mandate for Palestine. When in fact it is all one Mandate. The portion of the mandate east of the Jordan River was subject to Article 25 and not to be considered part of the allow territory for Jewish Immigration or consideration for the Jewish National Home. But as the Mandatory made quite clear, when this was addressed in 1929:

1003. Palestine and Trans-Jordan: Agreement between Great Britain and the Amir of Trans-Jordan : Attitude of the Commission.

• • 
    "There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."
    • 
      SOURCE: PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE FIFTEENTH SESSION Held at Geneva from July 1st to 19th, 1929. including the
      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

And the Pali's & their supporters bitch about Israrel's peace proposals. Don't that beat all? It's called Palestinian mentality. Heh Heh!

PA Parliament Jews Have No Right to Even One Inch of Israel WIBR WARN Radio--Covering the End of Days as they happen

There are no Israeli peace proposals.

The Israeli's do not want peace.

 

[Hossfly]

And the Pali's & their supporters bitch about Israrel's peace proposals. Don't that beat all? It's called Palestinian mentality. Heh Heh!

PA Parliament Jews Have No Right to Even One Inch of Israel WIBR WARN Radio--Covering the End of Days as they happen

There are no Israeli peace proposals.

The Israeli's do not want peace.

Riiiiiiiight!

Palestinian activists on May 11 broke up a conference in east Jerusalem where Israelis and Palestinians met to discuss the two-state solution. The activists belong to the "anti-normalization" campaign, which aims to thwart meetings between Israelis and Palestinians.

The conference at the Ambassador Hotel was organized by the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), a non-governmental organization (NGO) think tank based in Jerusalem. It has been working towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Entitled, "Is The Two-State Solution Still Relevant?," the conference was supposed to include a discussion on the issue from the perspectives of the Palestinian side and the Israeli Left.

Palestinians Anti-Peace Campaign

 

[P F Tinmore]

And the Pali's & their supporters bitch about Israrel's peace proposals. Don't that beat all? It's called Palestinian mentality. Heh Heh!

PA Parliament Jews Have No Right to Even One Inch of Israel WIBR WARN Radio--Covering the End of Days as they happen

There are no Israeli peace proposals.

The Israeli's do not want peace.

Riiiiiiiight!

Palestinian activists on May 11 broke up a conference in east Jerusalem where Israelis and Palestinians met to discuss the two-state solution. The activists belong to the "anti-normalization" campaign, which aims to thwart meetings between Israelis and Palestinians.

The conference at the Ambassador Hotel was organized by the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), a non-governmental organization (NGO) think tank based in Jerusalem. It has been working towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Entitled, "Is The Two-State Solution Still Relevant?," the conference was supposed to include a discussion on the issue from the perspectives of the Palestinian side and the Israeli Left.

Palestinians Anti-Peace Campaign

How do you "normalize" an occupation?

What Israeli policies do they change?