The "Palestinians" Gave Up Sovereign Claims Long Ago

[Lipush]

"Master race"?

Yoou serious?

 

[YKohen]

I saw the word nazi...

The nazis.supported.the.zionists and israel's right to exist

See:.edwin black, the transfer agreement

/godwin

Have you ever heard of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the would-have-been "Palestinians"?

He was very close to Hitler and the other Nazi leadership, actively recruited Bosnian Muslims for them, and wanted to set up death camps here like they had in Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...04-09A,_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamma...usayni#Pre-war

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ca...min_al-Husayni

Not much has changed:

FactsOfIsrael.com: Palestinian TV broadcasts racist programs calling Jews "monkeys and pigs"

http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/images/articles/palestinian-nazis.jpg

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/PalestinianNaziSalute01.jpg

http://www.honestreporting.com/images/papoliceheil.jpg

http://rightwingerz.com/wp-content/FatahYouth.jpg

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2001/images/arabic_mein_kampf.jpg

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/18.htm

http://bp1.blogger.com/_bG9aGH8yrpU/RsuvALeQWnI/AAAAAAAAANo/eSu8TGKFm7M/s1600/realholocaust.jpg

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/BlessHitler.jpg

NY Israel Day Parade Photos: Terror Supporters Inc. | Israellycool

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg062102.asp

"Mein Kampf For Sale, In Arabic" (18/03/2002)

AN Arabic translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf which has become a bestseller in the Palestinian territories is now on sale in Britain...

So? The world zionist congress proposed alliance with hitler in WWII

You really fon't want to use that line of argument if you want the Zionists to look like anything other than nationalsocialists who set out to fo a.dtate.for.their.own conception of a master.race

No they didn't, but never let facts bother you.

Zionism isn't about race. We come in all races.

Allah likes that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinny is playing another game of semantics-------the PARTITION became a fait accompli------with the war against the jews in palestine initiated by arabs as a response to the partition issue-----as he knows

got that everyone?---- tinnie claims a resolution of the UN----vanished ----because muslims did not want it and so attacked jews instead. When the smoke cleared and there was a truce line-----tinnie claims------ A PARTITION RESOLUTION never existed because the UN HAD FAILED TO FORCE IT ON MUSLIMS

Forcing the partition on the Palestinians would have violated international law and the UN charter.

That is why it didn't happen.

Please cite the chapter and article that it would have violated.

Thank you.

The right to self-determination

There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law.

UN Charter definition

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

 

[YKohen]

Forcing the partition on the Palestinians would have violated international law and the UN charter.

That is why it didn't happen.

Please cite the chapter and article that it would have violated.

Thank you.

The right to self-determination

There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law.

UN Charter definition

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

Please cite the UN Charter chapter and article that it would have violated, as per your assertion.

Thank you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Please cite the chapter and article that it would have violated.

Thank you.

The right to self-determination

There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law.

UN Charter definition

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

Please cite the UN Charter chapter and article that it would have violated, as per your assertion.

Thank you.

Look it up. I don't work for you.

 

[YKohen]

The right to self-determination

There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law.

UN Charter definition

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

Please cite the UN Charter chapter and article that it would have violated, as per your assertion.

Thank you.

Look it up. I don't work for you.

You made an assertion. Back it up with fact- unless you're simply lying.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Please cite the UN Charter chapter and article that it would have violated, as per your assertion.

Thank you.

Look it up. I don't work for you.

You made an assertion. Back it up with fact- unless you're simply lying.

Self-determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

 

[YKohen]

Look it up. I don't work for you.

You made an assertion. Back it up with fact- unless you're simply lying.

Self-determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

So sorry, but YOU made an assertion:

"Forcing the partition on the Palestinians would have violated international law and the UN charter."
​

Please cite the UN Charter chapter and article that it would have violated, as per your assertion.

Thank you.

 

[rosends]

UN Charter definition

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

thank you for this, but I have a question (and I admit to not having read the source material -- if this is answered there, please let me know and I apologize in advance):

what constitutes a "people" who have a right to self determination? Is my family a "people" that should be able to determine its actions and political status without interference of my government? what about my neighborhood? We could get together a sizable number of people (based in geography, heritage, values or some other defining feature) who would prefer not being oppressed by the limitations of the local legislature. What about the natives of any area (inuits etc)? At what point going back in history do we decide that indigenous peoples do not deserve the right to self determination? Even native Americans on reservations are bound by some US laws, or should we all "go back where we came from" ad infinitum. And, to take it a step in a different direction, now that the British (who were in control of the area of the mideast as they had taken it by force from the Ottomans I believe who had taken it by force etc...) partitioned it, don't the people of Israel have the same current right of self determination free from the external interference of outside groups (like, say, the UN)?

Just some thought questions.

 

[YKohen]

thank you for this, but I have a question (and I admit to not having read the source material -- if this is answered there, please let me know and I apologize in advance):

what constitutes a "people" who have a right to self determination? Is my family a "people" that should be able to determine its actions and political status without interference of my government? what about my neighborhood? We could get together a sizable number of people (based in geography, heritage, values or some other defining feature) who would prefer not being oppressed by the limitations of the local legislature. What about the natives of any area (inuits etc)? At what point going back in history do we decide that indigenous peoples do not deserve the right to self determination? Even native Americans on reservations are bound by some US laws, or should we all "go back where we came from" ad infinitum. And, to take it a step in a different direction, now that the British (who were in control of the area of the mideast as they had taken it by force from the Ottomans I believe who had taken it by force etc...) partitioned it, don't the people of Israel have the same current right of self determination free from the external interference of outside groups (like, say, the UN)?

Just some thought questions.

The real questions are:

• If the would-have-been "Palestinians" are so hell-bent on self-determination, why did they violently refuse a state so many times?
• How is it that they have continually tried to deprive the nation of Israel the right of determination and then have the gall to whine about self-determination?

 

[P F Tinmore]

thank you for this, but I have a question (and I admit to not having read the source material -- if this is answered there, please let me know and I apologize in advance):

what constitutes a "people" who have a right to self determination? Is my family a "people" that should be able to determine its actions and political status without interference of my government? what about my neighborhood? We could get together a sizable number of people (based in geography, heritage, values or some other defining feature) who would prefer not being oppressed by the limitations of the local legislature. What about the natives of any area (inuits etc)? At what point going back in history do we decide that indigenous peoples do not deserve the right to self determination? Even native Americans on reservations are bound by some US laws, or should we all "go back where we came from" ad infinitum. And, to take it a step in a different direction, now that the British (who were in control of the area of the mideast as they had taken it by force from the Ottomans I believe who had taken it by force etc...) partitioned it, don't the people of Israel have the same current right of self determination free from the external interference of outside groups (like, say, the UN)?

Just some thought questions.

The real questions are:

• If the would-have-been "Palestinians" are so hell-bent on self-determination, why did they violently refuse a state so many times?
• How is it that they have continually tried to deprive the nation of Israel the right of determination and then have the gall to whine about self-determination?

They did not reject "a state." They rejected partition. They rejected giving half their country to foreigners.

 

[YKohen]

thank you for this, but I have a question (and I admit to not having read the source material -- if this is answered there, please let me know and I apologize in advance):

what constitutes a "people" who have a right to self determination? Is my family a "people" that should be able to determine its actions and political status without interference of my government? what about my neighborhood? We could get together a sizable number of people (based in geography, heritage, values or some other defining feature) who would prefer not being oppressed by the limitations of the local legislature. What about the natives of any area (inuits etc)? At what point going back in history do we decide that indigenous peoples do not deserve the right to self determination? Even native Americans on reservations are bound by some US laws, or should we all "go back where we came from" ad infinitum. And, to take it a step in a different direction, now that the British (who were in control of the area of the mideast as they had taken it by force from the Ottomans I believe who had taken it by force etc...) partitioned it, don't the people of Israel have the same current right of self determination free from the external interference of outside groups (like, say, the UN)?

Just some thought questions.

The real questions are:

• If the would-have-been "Palestinians" are so hell-bent on self-determination, why did they violently refuse a state so many times?
• How is it that they have continually tried to deprive the nation of Israel the right of determination and then have the gall to whine about self-determination?

They did not reject "a state." They rejected partition. They rejected giving half their country to foreigners.

UN 181 provided for a state for them. They rejected UN 181- violently.

They therefore rejected a state.

It wasn't ***their country*** either- never was.

And now, no part ever will be.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The real questions are:

• If the would-have-been "Palestinians" are so hell-bent on self-determination, why did they violently refuse a state so many times?
• How is it that they have continually tried to deprive the nation of Israel the right of determination and then have the gall to whine about self-determination?

They did not reject "a state." They rejected partition. They rejected giving half their country to foreigners.

UN 181 provided for a state for them. They rejected UN 181- violently.

They therefore rejected a state.

It wasn't ***their country*** either- never was.

And now, no part ever will be.

"A state" is an Israeli propaganda term.

 

[YKohen]

They did not reject "a state." They rejected partition. They rejected giving half their country to foreigners.

UN 181 provided for a state for them. They rejected UN 181- violently.

They therefore rejected a state.

It wasn't ***their country*** either- never was.

And now, no part ever will be.

"A state" is an Israeli propaganda term.

A state is something real and tangible. The would-have-been "Palestinians" had opportunities to establish one time and again; even before the establishment of the state of Israel.

They were greedy and violent, so they chose not to.

Oh well. That's their choice.

 

[P F Tinmore]

UN 181 provided for a state for them. They rejected UN 181- violently.

They therefore rejected a state.

It wasn't ***their country*** either- never was.

And now, no part ever will be.

"A state" is an Israeli propaganda term.

A state is something real and tangible. The would-have-been "Palestinians" had opportunities to establish one time and again; even before the establishment of the state of Israel.

They were greedy and violent, so they chose not to.

Oh well. That's their choice.

The would-have-been "Palestinians" had opportunities to establish one time and again...

And who says they have not?

 

[rosends]

"A state" is an Israeli propaganda term.

actually, it is the language from part one of UN 181, paragraph 4:

"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below."

 

[irosie91]

gee-- "AN ARAB STATE"---------gee-----not "palestine"???

 

[docmauser1]

They did not reject "a state." They rejected partition. They rejected giving half their country to foreigners.

In memorable words of Winnie Churchill "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
Arab settlers and squatters, of course.

 

[P F Tinmore]

UN Charter definition

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

thank you for this, but I have a question (and I admit to not having read the source material -- if this is answered there, please let me know and I apologize in advance):

what constitutes a "people" who have a right to self determination? Is my family a "people" that should be able to determine its actions and political status without interference of my government? what about my neighborhood? We could get together a sizable number of people (based in geography, heritage, values or some other defining feature) who would prefer not being oppressed by the limitations of the local legislature. What about the natives of any area (inuits etc)? At what point going back in history do we decide that indigenous peoples do not deserve the right to self determination? Even native Americans on reservations are bound by some US laws, or should we all "go back where we came from" ad infinitum. And, to take it a step in a different direction, now that the British (who were in control of the area of the mideast as they had taken it by force from the Ottomans I believe who had taken it by force etc...) partitioned it, don't the people of Israel have the same current right of self determination free from the external interference of outside groups (like, say, the UN)?

Just some thought questions.

Good question. In relation to self determination the people are referred to as the inhabitants, indigenous, natives, normal residents, or permanent population. All of these terms reference people who normally live in an area.

 

[irosie91]

that's nice Tinnie----jews have lived in "palestine" and in other parts of the middle east------at many times being ---on the basis of the oppression and fascist laws of both the "holy' roman empire ------and the fascist caliphate----prevented from living in their homeland "palestine' aka Israel/Judea OPENLY-----ie ----lots lived there secretly ----uhm how do you think SAFED up there in the hills became a "holy city" for jews (hint its a place in the hills people hid from the likes of you and your fascist friends)

thus-----even if not physcially present at times----and at times --hidden----Only a filthy stinking nazi pigs could possible claim ----jews are not NORMAL RESIDENTS