Who are the Israelis?

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh No, again I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm saying that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are intentionally trying to manipulate the events of the Mandate Era concepts of the 1920's to fit the conditions the frame for:

• Conditions to which Resolution 1514 XV Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) was to address.

• That in the late 1870's, when the first Ottoman parliament convenes in Constantinople deputies from Jerusalem (ie: Palestine) are elected was the beginning of the Colonial Process allege. And that the establishment of Peta Tikva (AKA: Em HaMoshavot) ≈ 10 km east of present day Tel Aviv, was really the first of the invading "expellers;" and not the first Orthodox Jewish settlement established in the Ottoman Territory that would ultimately become the Jewish State of Israel.

• Drawing an improper similarity to the notion that as early as 1915, in the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Emir Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca), the British promised support for Arab independence in the Middle East was some sort of Ethnic Cleansing Plan.

• And that the British and French governments, in concert with the other Allied Powers, did conspire to establish control over territory. And that it really was not part of greater economic and commercial interests.

• You are trying to downplay that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title in favour of the Principal Allied Powers (not the Arab inhabitants).

• You are trying to promote the notion that the first steps part of the process of Ethnic Cleansing, and not part of the Great War objective and strategy to ensure oil supplies from Persia (current day Iran) might be cut off by the Turks.

• You are attempting to push the focus on an alleged conspiracy to Ethnically Cleanse the territory surrendered to the Allied Powers by a Jewish invasion. And draw attention away from the Agreement between HRH the Emir FAISAL and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization, that all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration).
​

This is not a case of me tap dancing around the issues, but more of a case that you are trying make an association between what the intent and purpose of the century old leadership agreements what you perceive as Ethnic Cleansing today.

The Allied Powers and the League of Nations, as did Prince Faisal and Dr Weizmann, the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration. There was no attempt to ethnically Cleanse the territory.

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

(COMMENT)

The notion that "I" --- "believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" is simply twisting the facts again.

The HoAP have every right to defend "themselves" --- as along as they are "defending themselves." But that is not the case. It's not "their land" they are were fighting over (until 1988). It was Ottoman Sovereignty for seven centuries before the Great War, renounced to the Allied Powers after the Great War.

The HoAP wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. They HoAP think the droning phrase "right to" really means "give me" (handout). If that was the intent, they would have said that.

The Arabs of Palestine - back then --- and the --- Arabs of Palestine - now --- create a hostile territorial environment --- and then blame the immigrants for reacting to protect and defend themselves. It turns out that the HoAP bit-off more than they can chew, and now complain to the world that the same people that murdered the Olympic Team Members in Munich, or the West Bank kidnapped and murder of three teenagers. They are neither defending themselves or involved in a righteous cause.

The HoAP virtual victim cry of "colonialism" based on the notion that General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) - "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" provides some special meaning to them. The cry of "colonialism" had no more meaning then (1960), than is has today. There are no Trust or Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) anywhere in the with the lands with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title into the hands of the Allied Powers. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Each year the Special Committee reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Palestine is not on the list.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Most respectfully,
R

There is no European claim to Palestine based on anything other than self-describe colonialism, invasion and settlement. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants have the inherent rights of the native people of the land. Your attempt to change historical fact is pathetic.

You also do not read the references you provide, doing so you shoot yourself in the foot as usual, your blind hate and racism towards Arabs blinds you.

"...Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom."


The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

And, Palestine is specifically named in UN Resolution A/RES/37/43 with reference to Resolution 1514 (XV) that you cite. Your dog won't hunt.


"Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to
Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of
the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,
....................... Reaffirming its faith in the importance of the implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,
contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,"

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

I'm afraid it's poor cricket laddie to presume you can rewrite history and rewrite the mandate.

Maybe you should learn the history of events that surrounded the collapse of the Turk / Islamist entity and their "quit-claim" to the area?

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh No, again I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm saying that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are intentionally trying to manipulate the events of the Mandate Era concepts of the 1920's to fit the conditions the frame for:

• Conditions to which Resolution 1514 XV Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) was to address.

• That in the late 1870's, when the first Ottoman parliament convenes in Constantinople deputies from Jerusalem (ie: Palestine) are elected was the beginning of the Colonial Process allege. And that the establishment of Peta Tikva (AKA: Em HaMoshavot) ≈ 10 km east of present day Tel Aviv, was really the first of the invading "expellers;" and not the first Orthodox Jewish settlement established in the Ottoman Territory that would ultimately become the Jewish State of Israel.

• Drawing an improper similarity to the notion that as early as 1915, in the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Emir Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca), the British promised support for Arab independence in the Middle East was some sort of Ethnic Cleansing Plan.

• And that the British and French governments, in concert with the other Allied Powers, did conspire to establish control over territory. And that it really was not part of greater economic and commercial interests.

• You are trying to downplay that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title in favour of the Principal Allied Powers (not the Arab inhabitants).

• You are trying to promote the notion that the first steps part of the process of Ethnic Cleansing, and not part of the Great War objective and strategy to ensure oil supplies from Persia (current day Iran) might be cut off by the Turks.

• You are attempting to push the focus on an alleged conspiracy to Ethnically Cleanse the territory surrendered to the Allied Powers by a Jewish invasion. And draw attention away from the Agreement between HRH the Emir FAISAL and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization, that all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration).
​

This is not a case of me tap dancing around the issues, but more of a case that you are trying make an association between what the intent and purpose of the century old leadership agreements what you perceive as Ethnic Cleansing today.

The Allied Powers and the League of Nations, as did Prince Faisal and Dr Weizmann, the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration. There was no attempt to ethnically Cleanse the territory.

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

(COMMENT)

The notion that "I" --- "believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" is simply twisting the facts again.

The HoAP have every right to defend "themselves" --- as along as they are "defending themselves." But that is not the case. It's not "their land" they are were fighting over (until 1988). It was Ottoman Sovereignty for seven centuries before the Great War, renounced to the Allied Powers after the Great War.

The HoAP wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. They HoAP think the droning phrase "right to" really means "give me" (handout). If that was the intent, they would have said that.

The Arabs of Palestine - back then --- and the --- Arabs of Palestine - now --- create a hostile territorial environment --- and then blame the immigrants for reacting to protect and defend themselves. It turns out that the HoAP bit-off more than they can chew, and now complain to the world that the same people that murdered the Olympic Team Members in Munich, or the West Bank kidnapped and murder of three teenagers. They are neither defending themselves or involved in a righteous cause.

The HoAP virtual victim cry of "colonialism" based on the notion that General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) - "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" provides some special meaning to them. The cry of "colonialism" had no more meaning then (1960), than is has today. There are no Trust or Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) anywhere in the with the lands with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title into the hands of the Allied Powers. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Each year the Special Committee reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Palestine is not on the list.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Most respectfully,
R

There is no European claim to Palestine based on anything other than self-describe colonialism, invasion and settlement. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants have the inherent rights of the native people of the land. Your attempt to change historical fact is pathetic.

You also do not read the references you provide, doing so you shoot yourself in the foot as usual, your blind hate and racism towards Arabs blinds you.

"...Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom."


The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

And, Palestine is specifically named in UN Resolution A/RES/37/43 with reference to Resolution 1514 (XV) that you cite. Your dog won't hunt.


"Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to
Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of
the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,
....................... Reaffirming its faith in the importance of the implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,
contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,"

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

I'm afraid it's poor cricket laddie to presume you can rewrite history and rewrite the mandate.

Maybe you should learn the history of events that surrounded the collapse of the Turk / Islamist entity and their "quit-claim" to the area?

Just posting fact. I know that irks you, even if you can't quite follow the grownups.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh No, again I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm saying that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are intentionally trying to manipulate the events of the Mandate Era concepts of the 1920's to fit the conditions the frame for:

• Conditions to which Resolution 1514 XV Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) was to address.

• That in the late 1870's, when the first Ottoman parliament convenes in Constantinople deputies from Jerusalem (ie: Palestine) are elected was the beginning of the Colonial Process allege. And that the establishment of Peta Tikva (AKA: Em HaMoshavot) ≈ 10 km east of present day Tel Aviv, was really the first of the invading "expellers;" and not the first Orthodox Jewish settlement established in the Ottoman Territory that would ultimately become the Jewish State of Israel.

• Drawing an improper similarity to the notion that as early as 1915, in the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Emir Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca), the British promised support for Arab independence in the Middle East was some sort of Ethnic Cleansing Plan.

• And that the British and French governments, in concert with the other Allied Powers, did conspire to establish control over territory. And that it really was not part of greater economic and commercial interests.

• You are trying to downplay that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title in favour of the Principal Allied Powers (not the Arab inhabitants).

• You are trying to promote the notion that the first steps part of the process of Ethnic Cleansing, and not part of the Great War objective and strategy to ensure oil supplies from Persia (current day Iran) might be cut off by the Turks.

• You are attempting to push the focus on an alleged conspiracy to Ethnically Cleanse the territory surrendered to the Allied Powers by a Jewish invasion. And draw attention away from the Agreement between HRH the Emir FAISAL and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization, that all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration).
​

This is not a case of me tap dancing around the issues, but more of a case that you are trying make an association between what the intent and purpose of the century old leadership agreements what you perceive as Ethnic Cleansing today.

The Allied Powers and the League of Nations, as did Prince Faisal and Dr Weizmann, the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration. There was no attempt to ethnically Cleanse the territory.

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

(COMMENT)

The notion that "I" --- "believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" is simply twisting the facts again.

The HoAP have every right to defend "themselves" --- as along as they are "defending themselves." But that is not the case. It's not "their land" they are were fighting over (until 1988). It was Ottoman Sovereignty for seven centuries before the Great War, renounced to the Allied Powers after the Great War.

The HoAP wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. They HoAP think the droning phrase "right to" really means "give me" (handout). If that was the intent, they would have said that.

The Arabs of Palestine - back then --- and the --- Arabs of Palestine - now --- create a hostile territorial environment --- and then blame the immigrants for reacting to protect and defend themselves. It turns out that the HoAP bit-off more than they can chew, and now complain to the world that the same people that murdered the Olympic Team Members in Munich, or the West Bank kidnapped and murder of three teenagers. They are neither defending themselves or involved in a righteous cause.

The HoAP virtual victim cry of "colonialism" based on the notion that General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) - "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" provides some special meaning to them. The cry of "colonialism" had no more meaning then (1960), than is has today. There are no Trust or Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) anywhere in the with the lands with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title into the hands of the Allied Powers. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Each year the Special Committee reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Palestine is not on the list.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Most respectfully,
R

There is no European claim to Palestine based on anything other than self-describe colonialism, invasion and settlement. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants have the inherent rights of the native people of the land. Your attempt to change historical fact is pathetic.

You also do not read the references you provide, doing so you shoot yourself in the foot as usual, your blind hate and racism towards Arabs blinds you.

"...Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom."


The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

And, Palestine is specifically named in UN Resolution A/RES/37/43 with reference to Resolution 1514 (XV) that you cite. Your dog won't hunt.


"Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to
Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of
the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,
....................... Reaffirming its faith in the importance of the implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,
contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,"

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

I'm afraid it's poor cricket laddie to presume you can rewrite history and rewrite the mandate.

Maybe you should learn the history of events that surrounded the collapse of the Turk / Islamist entity and their "quit-claim" to the area?

Just posting fact. I know that irks you, even if you can't quite follow the grownups.

I don't mind correcting your islamo-facts. They're a hoot.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I went back and re-read my Posting #357, and behold, I did not cite the non-binding 1982 UN Resolution A/RES/37/43. A 1960's document cannot cite a 1982 document unless it time travels.

But, since you brought it up, the West Bank was sovereign territory to Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It was annexed by the authority of the Palestinians People, and the right of self-determination, in April 1950. So, it is NOT a "Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence;" but sovereign territory. In 1982, while under the "effective control" of Israel, it was still Jordanian Sovereignty until politically abandon in 1988.

Similarly, the Gaza Strip, once under the All Palestine Government (APG), was a government dissolved Egypt (1959) and placed under an Egyptian Military Governorship. In 1967, while it was occupied Israel, there was no provisional government established by the population. However, the Seventh Arab Summit Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco, October 1974, declared the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. The responsibility for the independence of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory was in the hands of the PLO. It was not exercised until late-1988.

"...Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom."


The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

And, Palestine is specifically named in UN Resolution A/RES/37/43 with reference to Resolution 1514 (XV) that you cite. Your dog won't hunt.


"Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to
Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of
the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,
....................... Reaffirming its faith in the importance of the implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,
contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,"

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

(COMMENT)

NOTE: Most of what you wrote here is what we call a False Appeal to Authority.

In the 9th Clause of the non-binding Resolution, the implication was that the Israelis denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination. That did not happen. At no time did the State of Israel deny any democratic process by the provisional government set up by the PLO.

Just to be clear, the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 1514 (XV). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples did NOT mention either Israel or Palestine in the text. While Resolution 1514(XV) is not binding, HR #42 is law. Obviously, in 196o, the Six-Day War had not yet occurred. THUS, the 5th Paragraph of the main body of Resolution 1514 (XV) could not be addressing Israel. In 1967 and again in 1973, Israel took such step and measures necessary to secure the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations and Chapter VII (Article 51) for the purposes of self-defense and to install international peace for the purpose of regional security. These were not matters of colonialism; but to take the steps necessary prevent further:

1967: Voice of the Arabs radio station proclaimed on May 18, 1967:

• As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.

• Egypt forced the UN Emergency Force to withdraw, and moved up 100,000 across the Sinai. At that point, while some leaders had earlier expressed the thought that the Arabs would not attack, the footprint was clear.
​

1973: The Yom Kipper War

• A surprise attack Arab League Forces on Israel on 6 October 1973; involving a combined arms forces mostly from Egypt and Syria. On the Golan Heights, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers.
​

The Arabs of Palestine, and the Greater Arab League Region, have continually exhibited a pattern of hostile activity over the years. And while this pattern seems to have been broken with the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan, the same cannot be said for Syria and Lebanon.

The security measures today, cover a wide variety of threats exhibited by an Arab Culture that has not demonstrated the willingness to engage in serious negotiations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

What I posted was fact. What you posted is what Goebbels coined as "The Big Lie" adorned with what we call "A Deflection".

 

[toastman]

Israel, a shit country for sure. Candy ass Israeli soldiers picking on children.

Israel is the most amazing country on earth. Not Israel's fault you are brainwashed and easily believe in propaganda

 

[toastman]

What I posted was fact. What you posted is what Goebbels coined as "The Big Lie" adorned with what we call "A Deflection".

wow, some rebuttal. lol!!!!!

 

[montelatici]

Of course, you just didn't follow the thread.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh No, again I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm saying that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are intentionally trying to manipulate the events of the Mandate Era concepts of the 1920's to fit the conditions the frame for:

• Conditions to which Resolution 1514 XV Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) was to address.

• That in the late 1870's, when the first Ottoman parliament convenes in Constantinople deputies from Jerusalem (ie: Palestine) are elected was the beginning of the Colonial Process allege. And that the establishment of Peta Tikva (AKA: Em HaMoshavot) ≈ 10 km east of present day Tel Aviv, was really the first of the invading "expellers;" and not the first Orthodox Jewish settlement established in the Ottoman Territory that would ultimately become the Jewish State of Israel.

• Drawing an improper similarity to the notion that as early as 1915, in the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Emir Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca), the British promised support for Arab independence in the Middle East was some sort of Ethnic Cleansing Plan.

• And that the British and French governments, in concert with the other Allied Powers, did conspire to establish control over territory. And that it really was not part of greater economic and commercial interests.

• You are trying to downplay that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title in favour of the Principal Allied Powers (not the Arab inhabitants).

• You are trying to promote the notion that the first steps part of the process of Ethnic Cleansing, and not part of the Great War objective and strategy to ensure oil supplies from Persia (current day Iran) might be cut off by the Turks.

• You are attempting to push the focus on an alleged conspiracy to Ethnically Cleanse the territory surrendered to the Allied Powers by a Jewish invasion. And draw attention away from the Agreement between HRH the Emir FAISAL and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization, that all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration).
​

This is not a case of me tap dancing around the issues, but more of a case that you are trying make an association between what the intent and purpose of the century old leadership agreements what you perceive as Ethnic Cleansing today.

The Allied Powers and the League of Nations, as did Prince Faisal and Dr Weizmann, the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration. There was no attempt to ethnically Cleanse the territory.

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

(COMMENT)

The notion that "I" --- "believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" is simply twisting the facts again.

The HoAP have every right to defend "themselves" --- as along as they are "defending themselves." But that is not the case. It's not "their land" and did not (arguably) become their land until 1988 (and that is still undefined and not an internationally recognized permanent boundary). It was Ottoman Sovereignty for seven centuries before the Great War, territory renounced to the Allied Powers after the Great War.

The HoAP wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. They HoAP think the droning phrase "right to" really means "give me" (handout). If that was the intent, they would have said that.

The Arabs of Palestine - back then --- and the --- Arabs of Palestine - now --- create a hostile territorial environment --- and then blame the immigrants for reacting to protect and defend themselves. It turns out that the HoAP bit-off more than they can chew, and now complain to the world that the same people that murdered the Olympic Team Members in Munich, or the West Bank kidnapped and murder of three teenagers. They are neither defending themselves or involved in a righteous cause.

The HoAP virtual victim cry of "colonialism" based on the notion that General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) - "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" provides some special meaning to them. The cry of "colonialism" had no more meaning then (1960), than is has today. There are no Trust or Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) anywhere in the with the lands with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title into the hands of the Allied Powers. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Each year the Special Committee reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Palestine is not on the list.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Most respectfully,
R

Why do you call those who are defending themselves, hostile?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh No, again I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm saying that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are intentionally trying to manipulate the events of the Mandate Era concepts of the 1920's to fit the conditions the frame for:

• Conditions to which Resolution 1514 XV Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) was to address.

• That in the late 1870's, when the first Ottoman parliament convenes in Constantinople deputies from Jerusalem (ie: Palestine) are elected was the beginning of the Colonial Process allege. And that the establishment of Peta Tikva (AKA: Em HaMoshavot) ≈ 10 km east of present day Tel Aviv, was really the first of the invading "expellers;" and not the first Orthodox Jewish settlement established in the Ottoman Territory that would ultimately become the Jewish State of Israel.

• Drawing an improper similarity to the notion that as early as 1915, in the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Emir Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca), the British promised support for Arab independence in the Middle East was some sort of Ethnic Cleansing Plan.

• And that the British and French governments, in concert with the other Allied Powers, did conspire to establish control over territory. And that it really was not part of greater economic and commercial interests.

• You are trying to downplay that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title in favour of the Principal Allied Powers (not the Arab inhabitants).

• You are trying to promote the notion that the first steps part of the process of Ethnic Cleansing, and not part of the Great War objective and strategy to ensure oil supplies from Persia (current day Iran) might be cut off by the Turks.

• You are attempting to push the focus on an alleged conspiracy to Ethnically Cleanse the territory surrendered to the Allied Powers by a Jewish invasion. And draw attention away from the Agreement between HRH the Emir FAISAL and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization, that all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration).
​

This is not a case of me tap dancing around the issues, but more of a case that you are trying make an association between what the intent and purpose of the century old leadership agreements what you perceive as Ethnic Cleansing today.

The Allied Powers and the League of Nations, as did Prince Faisal and Dr Weizmann, the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration. There was no attempt to ethnically Cleanse the territory.

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

(COMMENT)

The notion that "I" --- "believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" is simply twisting the facts again.

The HoAP have every right to defend "themselves" --- as along as they are "defending themselves." But that is not the case. It's not "their land" they are were fighting over (until 1988). It was Ottoman Sovereignty for seven centuries before the Great War, renounced to the Allied Powers after the Great War.

The HoAP wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. They HoAP think the droning phrase "right to" really means "give me" (handout). If that was the intent, they would have said that.

The Arabs of Palestine - back then --- and the --- Arabs of Palestine - now --- create a hostile territorial environment --- and then blame the immigrants for reacting to protect and defend themselves. It turns out that the HoAP bit-off more than they can chew, and now complain to the world that the same people that murdered the Olympic Team Members in Munich, or the West Bank kidnapped and murder of three teenagers. They are neither defending themselves or involved in a righteous cause.

The HoAP virtual victim cry of "colonialism" based on the notion that General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) - "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" provides some special meaning to them. The cry of "colonialism" had no more meaning then (1960), than is has today. There are no Trust or Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) anywhere in the with the lands with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title into the hands of the Allied Powers. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Each year the Special Committee reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Palestine is not on the list.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Most respectfully,
R

There is no European claim to Palestine based on anything other than self-describe colonialism, invasion and settlement. The Muslim and Christian inhabitants have the inherent rights of the native people of the land. Your attempt to change historical fact is pathetic.

You also do not read the references you provide, doing so you shoot yourself in the foot as usual, your blind hate and racism towards Arabs blinds you.

"...Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom."


The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

And, Palestine is specifically named in UN Resolution A/RES/37/43 with reference to Resolution 1514 (XV) that you cite. Your dog won't hunt.


"Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to
Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of
the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,
....................... Reaffirming its faith in the importance of the implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,
contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,"

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

Also from your link:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh No, again I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm saying that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are intentionally trying to manipulate the events of the Mandate Era concepts of the 1920's to fit the conditions the frame for:

• Conditions to which Resolution 1514 XV Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) was to address.

• That in the late 1870's, when the first Ottoman parliament convenes in Constantinople deputies from Jerusalem (ie: Palestine) are elected was the beginning of the Colonial Process allege. And that the establishment of Peta Tikva (AKA: Em HaMoshavot) ≈ 10 km east of present day Tel Aviv, was really the first of the invading "expellers;" and not the first Orthodox Jewish settlement established in the Ottoman Territory that would ultimately become the Jewish State of Israel.

• Drawing an improper similarity to the notion that as early as 1915, in the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Emir Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca), the British promised support for Arab independence in the Middle East was some sort of Ethnic Cleansing Plan.

• And that the British and French governments, in concert with the other Allied Powers, did conspire to establish control over territory. And that it really was not part of greater economic and commercial interests.

• You are trying to downplay that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title in favour of the Principal Allied Powers (not the Arab inhabitants).

• You are trying to promote the notion that the first steps part of the process of Ethnic Cleansing, and not part of the Great War objective and strategy to ensure oil supplies from Persia (current day Iran) might be cut off by the Turks.

• You are attempting to push the focus on an alleged conspiracy to Ethnically Cleanse the territory surrendered to the Allied Powers by a Jewish invasion. And draw attention away from the Agreement between HRH the Emir FAISAL and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization, that all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration).
​

This is not a case of me tap dancing around the issues, but more of a case that you are trying make an association between what the intent and purpose of the century old leadership agreements what you perceive as Ethnic Cleansing today.

The Allied Powers and the League of Nations, as did Prince Faisal and Dr Weizmann, the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration. There was no attempt to ethnically Cleanse the territory.

You are still dancing around the issues.

The fact that the expellers were newcomers to the country, and
part of a colonization project, relates the case of Palestine to the
colonialist history of ethnic cleansing in North and South America,
Africa and Australia, where white settlers routinely committed such
crimes. This intriguing aspect of the historical instance Israel offers
was the subject of several recent and excellent studies. Gershon
Shafir and Baruch Kimmerling informed us about the connection
between Zionism and Colonialism, a nexus that can bring us at first
to exploitation rather than expulsion, but once the idea of an
exclusive Jewish economy became a central part of the vision,
there was no room for Arab workers or peasants.

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf​

Yet you believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves from this aggression.

(COMMENT)

The notion that "I" --- "believe that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves" is simply twisting the facts again.

The HoAP have every right to defend "themselves" --- as along as they are "defending themselves." But that is not the case. It's not "their land" and did not (arguably) become their land until 1988 (and that is still undefined and not an internationally recognized permanent boundary). It was Ottoman Sovereignty for seven centuries before the Great War, territory renounced to the Allied Powers after the Great War.

The HoAP wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. They HoAP think the droning phrase "right to" really means "give me" (handout). If that was the intent, they would have said that.

The Arabs of Palestine - back then --- and the --- Arabs of Palestine - now --- create a hostile territorial environment --- and then blame the immigrants for reacting to protect and defend themselves. It turns out that the HoAP bit-off more than they can chew, and now complain to the world that the same people that murdered the Olympic Team Members in Munich, or the West Bank kidnapped and murder of three teenagers. They are neither defending themselves or involved in a righteous cause.

The HoAP virtual victim cry of "colonialism" based on the notion that General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) - "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" provides some special meaning to them. The cry of "colonialism" had no more meaning then (1960), than is has today. There are no Trust or Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) anywhere in the with the lands with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title into the hands of the Allied Powers. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Each year the Special Committee reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Palestine is not on the list.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Most respectfully,
R

Why do you call those who are defending themselves, hostile?

Your comment is drenched in taqiyya. The koran and the Hamas Charter are little more than hate and war manuals. They both lay out the parameters for offensive gee-had.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is clause is often pointed-out by the pro-Palestinian Movement, as if it conveys something special or unique to the Arab Palestinians. It comes from Paragraph #3 of the main body, the non-binding 1982 UN Resolution A/RES/37/43.

It actually does not; but, sounds good.

Also from your link:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

(COMMENT)

All and "inalienable right" is derived from natural law, used to suggest that it aright that cannot be revoked, withdrawn, or transferred. But this clause actually promises nothing and conveys nothing different.

All the 1982 non-binding Resolution does is to emphasis/reiterate Chapter I - Purposes and Principles - Article 1(2). This Resolution essentially says that Israel has the same rights and self-determination, as any other peoples.

In 1982, there was no Arab-Palestinian Government. The West Bank was Sovereign territory of Jordan occupied by Israel; and the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship occupied by Israeli.

Are you implying that some some Arab League member revoked, withdrawn, or transferred some territory?

AND, I say again, there is no territory within the Middle East that is considered (or meets the intent) a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). Committee 24, is the UN activity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, and maintains the list of NSGTs is charged with implementing General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.

Get off the Colonial kick and grab some other life-raft.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is clause is often pointed-out by the pro-Palestinian Movement, as if it conveys something special or unique to the Arab Palestinians. It comes from Paragraph #3 of the main body, the non-binding 1982 UN Resolution A/RES/37/43.

It actually does not; but, sounds good.

Also from your link:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

(COMMENT)

All and "inalienable right" is derived from natural law, used to suggest that it aright that cannot be revoked, withdrawn, or transferred. But this clause actually promises nothing and conveys nothing different.

All the 1982 non-binding Resolution does is to emphasis/reiterate Chapter I - Purposes and Principles - Article 1(2). This Resolution essentially says that Israel has the same rights and self-determination, as any other peoples.

In 1982, there was no Arab-Palestinian Government. The West Bank was Sovereign territory of Jordan occupied by Israel; and the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship occupied by Israeli.

Are you implying that some some Arab League member revoked, withdrawn, or transferred some territory?

AND, I say again, there is no territory within the Middle East that is considered (or meets the intent) a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). Committee 24, is the UN activity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, and maintains the list of NSGTs is charged with implementing General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.

Get off the Colonial kick and grab some other life-raft.

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't get into such a huff about Israel's colonialism. The British and the Zionists both spoke openly about their colonial project. History says it is true. The facts on the ground say it is true.

Israel's colonialism is creeping into the lexicon of the struggle. Now that the Palestinians are gaining a voice on the world stage Israel's colonialism is becoming common knowledge.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is clause is often pointed-out by the pro-Palestinian Movement, as if it conveys something special or unique to the Arab Palestinians. It comes from Paragraph #3 of the main body, the non-binding 1982 UN Resolution A/RES/37/43.

It actually does not; but, sounds good.

Also from your link:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

(COMMENT)

All and "inalienable right" is derived from natural law, used to suggest that it aright that cannot be revoked, withdrawn, or transferred. But this clause actually promises nothing and conveys nothing different.

All the 1982 non-binding Resolution does is to emphasis/reiterate Chapter I - Purposes and Principles - Article 1(2). This Resolution essentially says that Israel has the same rights and self-determination, as any other peoples.

In 1982, there was no Arab-Palestinian Government. The West Bank was Sovereign territory of Jordan occupied by Israel; and the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship occupied by Israeli.

Are you implying that some some Arab League member revoked, withdrawn, or transferred some territory?

AND, I say again, there is no territory within the Middle East that is considered (or meets the intent) a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). Committee 24, is the UN activity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, and maintains the list of NSGTs is charged with implementing General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.

Get off the Colonial kick and grab some other life-raft.

Most Respectfully,
R

A little sensitive about the European colonization of Palestine? The Zionists and the British openly stated it was a colonial project. That's just a fact.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is clause is often pointed-out by the pro-Palestinian Movement, as if it conveys something special or unique to the Arab Palestinians. It comes from Paragraph #3 of the main body, the non-binding 1982 UN Resolution A/RES/37/43.

It actually does not; but, sounds good.

Also from your link:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

(COMMENT)

All and "inalienable right" is derived from natural law, used to suggest that it aright that cannot be revoked, withdrawn, or transferred. But this clause actually promises nothing and conveys nothing different.

All the 1982 non-binding Resolution does is to emphasis/reiterate Chapter I - Purposes and Principles - Article 1(2). This Resolution essentially says that Israel has the same rights and self-determination, as any other peoples.

In 1982, there was no Arab-Palestinian Government. The West Bank was Sovereign territory of Jordan occupied by Israel; and the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship occupied by Israeli.

Are you implying that some some Arab League member revoked, withdrawn, or transferred some territory?

AND, I say again, there is no territory within the Middle East that is considered (or meets the intent) a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). Committee 24, is the UN activity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, and maintains the list of NSGTs is charged with implementing General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.

Get off the Colonial kick and grab some other life-raft.

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't get into such a huff about Israel's colonialism. The British and the Zionists both spoke openly about their colonial project. History says it is true. The facts on the ground say it is true.

Israel's colonialism is creeping into the lexicon of the struggle. Now that the Palestinians are gaining a voice on the world stage Israel's colonialism is becoming common knowledge.

Is there any chance you could add a few more silly slogans to what you heard at your madrassah?

The Struggle™

Pal'istanians gaining a voice™

When you emerge from your coma, you're going to realize that the Palestinians are yester-decades news. The west is living its patience with the forever welfare fraud that defines the black hole of the Arab-Moslem money pit.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is clause is often pointed-out by the pro-Palestinian Movement, as if it conveys something special or unique to the Arab Palestinians. It comes from Paragraph #3 of the main body, the non-binding 1982 UN Resolution A/RES/37/43.

It actually does not; but, sounds good.

Also from your link:

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

(COMMENT)

All and "inalienable right" is derived from natural law, used to suggest that it aright that cannot be revoked, withdrawn, or transferred. But this clause actually promises nothing and conveys nothing different.

All the 1982 non-binding Resolution does is to emphasis/reiterate Chapter I - Purposes and Principles - Article 1(2). This Resolution essentially says that Israel has the same rights and self-determination, as any other peoples.

In 1982, there was no Arab-Palestinian Government. The West Bank was Sovereign territory of Jordan occupied by Israel; and the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship occupied by Israeli.

Are you implying that some some Arab League member revoked, withdrawn, or transferred some territory?

AND, I say again, there is no territory within the Middle East that is considered (or meets the intent) a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT). Committee 24, is the UN activity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, and maintains the list of NSGTs is charged with implementing General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.

Get off the Colonial kick and grab some other life-raft.

Most Respectfully,
R

A little sensitive about the European colonization of Palestine? The Zionists and the British openly stated it was a colonial project. That's just a fact.

A little in denial about the Islamist and Ottoman Turk colonial projects?

You're obviously selective about your contrived, sweaty "outrage" when it comes to the groups who immigrated to the area. The difference is that the Ottoman invaders / colonists went the way of the Islamist invaders / colonists before them. Islamist apartheid / theocratic totlaitarian states have a pattern of collapsing from their own dead weight.

Very strange that your heroes are fascists and social misfits. Birds of a feather?

 

[Shusha]

The problem with all this talk about "colonialism" is that the Jewish people ALSO have the right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without external interference. And they have that right within the territory which is their historical, ancestral and spiritual/religious homeland.

The quoted resolution reaffirms that ALL PEOPLES have the right to be free from foreign and colonial domination. That would include the Jewish people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The problem with all this talk about "colonialism" is that the Jewish people ALSO have the right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without external interference. And they have that right within the territory which is their historical, ancestral and spiritual/religious homeland.

The quoted resolution reaffirms that ALL PEOPLES have the right to be free from foreign and colonial domination. That would include the Jewish people.

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination but I haven't seen any for the Jews.

 

[Shusha]

The problem with all this talk about "colonialism" is that the Jewish people ALSO have the right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without external interference. And they have that right within the territory which is their historical, ancestral and spiritual/religious homeland.

The quoted resolution reaffirms that ALL PEOPLES have the right to be free from foreign and colonial domination. That would include the Jewish people.

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination but I haven't seen any for the Jews.

Why would SOME peoples have the rights to self-determination and others not? Why would SOME people have the right to live free from colonialism and foreign domination and others not?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The problem with all this talk about "colonialism" is that the Jewish people ALSO have the right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without external interference. And they have that right within the territory which is their historical, ancestral and spiritual/religious homeland.

The quoted resolution reaffirms that ALL PEOPLES have the right to be free from foreign and colonial domination. That would include the Jewish people.

There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination but I haven't seen any for the Jews.

Why would SOME peoples have the rights to self-determination and others not? Why would SOME people have the right to live free from colonialism and foreign domination and others not?

It is the people of the place who have the right to self determination. The people from someplace else do not.