The "Palestinians" Gave Up Sovereign Claims Long Ago

YKohen

Senior Member
Nov 5, 2012
336
28
51
YeShA, Israel
De facto, by rejecting UN 181 in 1948- the resolution that was going to establish two states here, they gave up claims to a state.

And de jure, in 1964 with their PLO Charter, they gave up all sovereign claims:

"THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER" (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations - Palestine National Charter of 1964

Anything unclear?
 
De facto, by rejecting UN 181 in 1948- the resolution that was going to establish two states here, they gave up claims to a state.

And de jure, in 1964 with their PLO Charter, they gave up all sovereign claims:

"THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER" (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations - Palestine National Charter of 1964

Anything unclear?
Tinmore will jump on this like a duck on a June Bug.
 
De facto, by rejecting UN 181 in 1948- the resolution that was going to establish two states here, they gave up claims to a state.

And de jure, in 1964 with their PLO Charter, they gave up all sovereign claims:

"THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER" (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations - Palestine National Charter of 1964

Anything unclear?

There was no resolution 181. The Security Council rejected it. It was never implemented. They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The PLO was not a government, it was an organization. Of course they do not have sovereignty.
 
De facto, by rejecting UN 181 in 1948- the resolution that was going to establish two states here, they gave up claims to a state.

And de jure, in 1964 with their PLO Charter, they gave up all sovereign claims:

"THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER" (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations - Palestine National Charter of 1964

Anything unclear?

There was no resolution 181. The Security Council rejected it. It was never implemented. They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The PLO was not a government, it was an organization. Of course they do not have sovereignty.
So what's yer beef? The issue has been put to rest.
 
The PLO----invented the PALESTINIANS ------it is correct to say that they have no sovereign rights to anything-----partition did not include them-----they are a separatist criminal organization which has become a CAUSE CELEBRE for fascist arabists and islamicists Their modus operandi is terroirism----particularly directed against children------and their supporters cheer every baby murder they accomplish. Justifying them would justify a PUNJABI SIKH MOVEMENT which devoted itself to slitting the throats of muslim children in the pakistani moiety of the PUNJAB province with a demand to OWNERSHIP OF ALL OF WHAT IS NOW WEST PAKISTAN------the muslim pakistanis could be advised to return to their stinking yurts in the mountains ------good idea TINNIE
 
De facto, by rejecting UN 181 in 1948- the resolution that was going to establish two states here, they gave up claims to a state.

And de jure, in 1964 with their PLO Charter, they gave up all sovereign claims:

"THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER" (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations - Palestine National Charter of 1964

Anything unclear?

There was no resolution 181. The Security Council rejected it. It was never implemented. They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The PLO was not a government, it was an organization. Of course they do not have sovereignty.

Denial ain't a river:

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

The Security Council didn't reject it:

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It didn't even have to do with the SC.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The PLO was the official representative body of the would-have-been "Palestinians". They gave up all sovereign claims here- officially.

The end.
 
kohen----be patient----tinnie's mind has been IMBUED with the ------NON EXISTENT STATUS OF ISRAEL -----which is taught thruout the ummah (it has to be "NOT the will of allah") therefore it does not exist. It is a CONTRADITION in the geometry of islam
 
I'm just posting the cold, hard verifiable facts for people who actually value truth.


Kohen----there is "FACT"-----and then there is "DIVINE TRUTH" tinnie adheres
to the DIVINE TRUTH of ISLAMO NAZISM In order to simply understand
what he says in his posts-----you have to understand that fact. Here is one>>
Israel does not exist----PALESTINE EXISTS AS A COUNTRY WHICH
IS MUSLIM LAND AND WAS INVADED BY JEWS AND IS NOW
ILLEGALY OCCUPIED BY JEWS

The above is true because----it happens to so defined
by muslim scholars-----it is the KORANIC TRUTH

Several years ago ---I saw a little interview by some guy who was
interviewing an IRANIAN INTELLECTUAL WOMAN all decked
out in black burkah. It has to do with some death sentence
upon another iintellectual who had published something
"non islamic' The lady defended the death sentence
VIGOROUSLY-----she said --" "TRUTH" is a matter of absolute
importance to mankind----SO OBVIOUSLY---a person who
REJECTS THE TRUTH OF THE KORAN---HAS COMITTED THE MOST
SERIOUS OF CRIMES"

now do you understand tinnie?
 
De facto, by rejecting UN 181 in 1948- the resolution that was going to establish two states here, they gave up claims to a state.

And de jure, in 1964 with their PLO Charter, they gave up all sovereign claims:

"THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER" (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations - Palestine National Charter of 1964

Anything unclear?

There was no resolution 181. The Security Council rejected it. It was never implemented. They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The PLO was not a government, it was an organization. Of course they do not have sovereignty.

Denial ain't a river:

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

The Security Council didn't reject it:

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It didn't even have to do with the SC.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The PLO was the official representative body of the would-have-been "Palestinians". They gave up all sovereign claims here- officially.

The end.

Resolution 181.

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

When did that happen?
 
It did not happen----it was a RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION that galvanize the islamo nazi world to start a war I know eye witnesses to the event ---people who experienced the events-----day by day at that time
In 1947 ---arab armies converged on the jewish population of east jerusalem
and imposed a STARVATION SIEGE----- (the kind tinnie likes the best---like the one that left more than a million biafran kids dead in the dust)

well---some people would call that an act of war------with all the killing and siege stuff and kids dying of starvation ------but since the rape of sudanese women and the enslavement of their children was LEGAL ---why not a starvatoin siege?
 
It did not happen----it was a RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION that galvanize the islamo nazi world to start a war I know eye witnesses to the event ---people who experienced the events-----day by day at that time
In 1947 ---arab armies converged on the jewish population of east jerusalem
and imposed a STARVATION SIEGE----- (the kind tinnie likes the best---like the one that left more than a million biafran kids dead in the dust)

well---some people would call that an act of war------with all the killing and siege stuff and kids dying of starvation ------but since the rape of sudanese women and the enslavement of their children was LEGAL ---why not a starvatoin siege?

It did not happen----it was a RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION...

Thank you.
 
It did not happen----it was a RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION that galvanize the islamo nazi world to start a war I know eye witnesses to the event ---people who experienced the events-----day by day at that time
In 1947 ---arab armies converged on the jewish population of east jerusalem
and imposed a STARVATION SIEGE----- (the kind tinnie likes the best---like the one that left more than a million biafran kids dead in the dust)

well---some people would call that an act of war------with all the killing and siege stuff and kids dying of starvation ------but since the rape of sudanese women and the enslavement of their children was LEGAL ---why not a starvatoin siege?

It did not happen----it was a RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION...

Thank you.

you are welcome----and then the matter was addressed ----by a war of aggression comitted by arab muslims IN RESPONSE to the resolution you are playing with semantics again------using your idiot arguements-----one could declare PAKISTAN non-existent. Your very basic notion that ISRAEL DOES NOT EXIST because the muslims do not like the idea is an idea you can shove where the sun don't shine. According to the KKK in the USA----black slavery was never "legally" ended
 
tinnie is stumped again------get this---he has declared that RESOLUTIONS SHOULD BE ENFORCED BY THE UN_------unless muslims do not like them---then they do not exist
 
LOL !!!!!!!!!!! This has to be one of the more hilarious posts I've read here...apparently the essence of the establishment of the PLO entirely eludes you---as does the content of Resolution 181. The PLO was established as a political representative for the disenfranchised native population of Palestine---with the avowed aim of repatriating the land stolen by Zionists in 48...your conclusion that they relinquished claims to their own land is quite bewildering. As for 181...this was a non-binding recommendation, it did not contain a default clause that awarded land to the Jews should the native population vote it down...please attempt to educate yourself before posting gibberish...


Codger---if there is anyone confused here----it is you. The PLO----was established as a quaisi militant nationalist movement in OPPOSITION to the partition of the palestine mandate. The PARTITION of palestine does not involve THEFT Do you claim that MUSLIMS STOLE PAKISTAN from HINDU INDIANS? ----or perhaps you want to claim that the people of southern sudan STOLE southern sudan from ARAB MUSLIMS who rule from KHARTOUM. The PLO is an ARABIST organization----devoted to creating an 100% arab natiionalist middle east-----essentially ---a caliphate
 
Israel took their Sovereign claims by controlling their borders.

LOL !!!!!! "Borders"???? review the details of the borders over a forty-year period...these 'borders" are constantly shifting to the Jews' advantage, and yet Israel has flatly refused to declare permanent borders for obvious reasoning: it would compromise their progressive land-theft, and settlement designs...

Yeah. They won't even declare their borders. So they can expand settlement construction. And expand their borders

The Israelis do control all borders that should belong to the Palestinians.

They control what goes in and out so Palestinians aren't sovereign.

It's time they get their rights.
 
kohen i was trying to find your post about camp david with the interview with Dennis Ross

ROSS is a fully paid up AIPAC acolyte and biased, so unreliable, I think

here is a balanced account, also by one of Clinton's team, Robert Malley

Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha | The New York Review of Books

he does NOT take sides and there's lots of juicy stuff in it which you will enjoy for sure

sorry no time to analyse your OP on this thread and reply

shalom
 
Dennis Ross can sue you for libel- and win; in a heartbeat.

Clinton to Arafat: It’s All Your Fault

Abu Ala himself even admitted that the PLO was to blame:

Qureia described a tense face-off with President Bill Clinton on the third day of the Camp David summit, when the Israelis laid out a map showing how the West Bank could be divided between Israeli and Palestinian control. Qureia insisted that the Palestinians were entitled to all the West Bank land Israel conquered in 1967, with only minor modifications in the form of territorial swaps.

At that, he said, Clinton lost his temper and asked Qureia what his proposals were.


"I said, 'Mr. President, I don't have proposals. My proposal is the 1967 borders,' "Qureia recalled."I told him this is the basis, the term of reference of this process. He said, 'But you should offer a proposal.'


"I told him, 'Mr. President, I cannot take my hand, part of my body [and] give it to somebody else.' "


Qureia asked Clinton to show him "what things realistically he needs that will not affect the viability of our [Palestinian] state, the contiguity of our land, because this is the future of the Palestinian people."


Qureia said Clinton became angry and said, " 'Sir, you hold personally the responsibility for the failure of the summit. If you want to address speeches, go to the United Nations Security Council, address speeches there. Don't waste my time here.' "


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2001/0724davi.htm

"Didn't we dance for joy at the failure of Camp David?" asks Nabil Amer, formerly one of Arafat's chief aides. "After two years of bloodshed, we are now calling for what we rejected."

To End the [Palestinian] Violence :: Daniel Pipes

And you might also want to see the interview of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, done by Elsa Walsh in The New Yorker (March 24, 2003). In the interview, the ambassador attacks Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat in the sharpest tone. He refers to a meeting between Arafat and President Bill Clinton in January 2001, at which Bandar was pressuring the Palestinian leader to accept Clinton's proposals. This offer, Bandar says, gave the Palestinians 97 percent of the territories, all of Jerusalem - excluding the Jewish and Armenian quarters and the right of Jews to pray at the Temple Mount - and $30 billion in a "compensation fund."

Pressuring Arafat, Bandar tells him: You won't get anything better. Bandar asks whether the PA chairman would prefer Ariel Sharon to Barak - in light of the upcoming elections in Israel - and then he presents Arafat with an ultimatum: If you do not accept the Clinton offer, this means "we go to war"; no Arab state will rally to support you.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/24/030324fa_fact_walsh


"Atwan: Arafat Signed Oslo Accords Hoping Jews Would Flee" (November 20, 2004)

Yasser Arafat agreed to sign the Oslo Accords because he expected that the agreements would lead thousands of Jews to flee Israel.

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based daily al-Quds al-Arabi, said Arafat said so when they met in Tunis, days before he returned to the Gaza Strip. "The man told me, 'Listen, Abdel Bari, I know that you are opposed to the Oslo Accords, but you must always remember what I'm going to tell you. The day will come when you will see thousands of Jews fleeing Palestine. I will not live to see this, but you will definitely see it in your lifetime. The Oslo Accords will help bring this about.'"...

As an added bonus:

Best. Deal. Ever.
The untold story of Condi’s Peace-Process Anguish.
by Condoleezza Rice | October 23, 2011

But we digress. The fact is that the would-have-been "Palestinians" had given up their claims to OUR land long ago.

I sure am glad that we have cleared that up once and for all.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top