Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

In both cases here, it is entirely an open and boldface misrepresentation of the facts.

No history of palestinians They never existed

Ancient history of the Jews

Another Israeli lie.
--------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

No history of palestinians. Palestine was a Roman name imposed on Jews’ land

American archaeologists discover ancient Jewish synagogue in Israel

Lie, lie, lie, Israel is based on lies.

The case raised the issue of the status of those concessions following the demise of the Turkish empire, meaning that the PCIJ needed to determine what kind of entity had replaced Turkey in the territory of Palestine. The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
------------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

The passage in question does not say: Palestine was the Successor State to Turkey --- not at all. It says "the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine, and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, since the year 1921." You may recall from your history, that the Mandate Civil Administration assumed control over the territory in June 1921. Both the two PCIJ Judgments use the same language:

• A02 --- Judgment No. 2 30 August 1924
• A05 --- Judgment of 26 March 1925 (See Page 7)
​

While Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne deals with nationality, it does not establish political sovereignty. Even in the case of nationality, the assignment is to the Government of Palestine under the Administration of the Allied Powers selected Mandate; Great Britain. British civil administration of Palestine began in 1920. Absent the British Administration, there was no Arab self-governing framework.

Most Respectfully,
R










Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is mostly gibberish.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is another one of those, propaganda sounds bites. It has just enough truth in it to fool the casual observer.

Armistice lines are specifically not to be political of territorial borders.

(COMMENT)

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

The General Armistice Agreement between the Egyptian-Israeli Governments S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 has been superseded by the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel. Article XII, Paragraph 2, states that the Armistice l "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." The peaces settlement between the parties was achieved through the Peace Treaty between Egypt-Israel (MAR 1979).

Article II of the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty addresses the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

With the establishment of the treaty, the Armistice is dissolved. There is no Armistice Line.

And even if there was, as in the time prior to the treaty, an Armistice Line is protected to the same degree as the permanent border. Under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625 1970):

"Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."
​

The entire issue of Borders, as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) --- Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) very well knows as been a set element with the Permanent Status of Negotiation under the Article V of The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements Oslo Accords.

"It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."
​

People should not allow themselves to be confused by claims of what the Arab Palestinians have massaged into something that sounds both sound and valid; it is far from it.

Finally: As is "customary" in law [a general and consistent practice of states --- from the time before the Greco-Turkish War (1897) ⇒ Gulf Wars], the Arab Palestinians should be subject to "War Reparation" penalties and payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during the Israeli-Arab Palestinian conflict (1988 to present).

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

That is true. Even though the war was fought inside Palestine, Palestine (who had no army) was not a party of the conflict. The armistice lines were drawn around and through Palestine to separate the armed forces of those involved. Since the armistice lines specifically were not to be political or territorial boundaries, they had no affect on Palestine's territory or international borders. Palestine remained intact but was divided into three areas of occupation.

Since the armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza went through Palestine, and since they were not borders, it was still Palestine on both sides. To say that the Palestinians violate Israel's territorial integrity is simply not true.

(COMMENT)

There are no Armistice Line today. Other than a set of Historical Reference points, with relationship to the Arab Palestinians bounded by Jordan and Egypt, the borders are with Israel.

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

CHAPTER I - Article 2(7) - UN CHARTER
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

To say that Israel, under the current configuration in which the territorial sovereignty is recognized nw expanded to the limits to which the former Mandate of Palestine once applied. That would make the conflict a "Civil War" between factions (as opposed to an occupation) and the West Bank and Gaza Strip rogue territories. That means "no occupation" under the Arab Palestinian criteria.

IF it is a purely domestic issue (as you claim) THEN the complaint that Israel has done this or that is in violation of Customary and IHL is not more serious than the Annexation f the Crimea by Russia, or the reincorporation of Tibet by China.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

In both cases here, it is entirely an open and boldface misrepresentation of the facts.

No history of palestinians They never existed

Ancient history of the Jews

Another Israeli lie.
--------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

No history of palestinians. Palestine was a Roman name imposed on Jews’ land

American archaeologists discover ancient Jewish synagogue in Israel

Lie, lie, lie, Israel is based on lies.

The case raised the issue of the status of those concessions following the demise of the Turkish empire, meaning that the PCIJ needed to determine what kind of entity had replaced Turkey in the territory of Palestine. The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
------------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

The passage in question does not say: Palestine was the Successor State to Turkey --- not at all. It says "the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine, and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, since the year 1921." You may recall from your history, that the Mandate Civil Administration assumed control over the territory in June 1921. Both the two PCIJ Judgments use the same language:

• A02 --- Judgment No. 2 30 August 1924
• A05 --- Judgment of 26 March 1925 (See Page 7)
​

While Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne deals with nationality, it does not establish political sovereignty. Even in the case of nationality, the assignment is to the Government of Palestine under the Administration of the Allied Powers selected Mandate; Great Britain. British civil administration of Palestine began in 1920. Absent the British Administration, there was no Arab self-governing framework.

Most Respectfully,
R










Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

Indeed, that was before Palestine became a state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is mostly gibberish.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is another one of those, propaganda sounds bites. It has just enough truth in it to fool the casual observer.

Armistice lines are specifically not to be political of territorial borders.

(COMMENT)

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

The General Armistice Agreement between the Egyptian-Israeli Governments S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 has been superseded by the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel. Article XII, Paragraph 2, states that the Armistice l "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." The peaces settlement between the parties was achieved through the Peace Treaty between Egypt-Israel (MAR 1979).

Article II of the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty addresses the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

With the establishment of the treaty, the Armistice is dissolved. There is no Armistice Line.

And even if there was, as in the time prior to the treaty, an Armistice Line is protected to the same degree as the permanent border. Under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625 1970):

"Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."
​

The entire issue of Borders, as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) --- Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) very well knows as been a set element with the Permanent Status of Negotiation under the Article V of The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements Oslo Accords.

"It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."
​

People should not allow themselves to be confused by claims of what the Arab Palestinians have massaged into something that sounds both sound and valid; it is far from it.

Finally: As is "customary" in law [a general and consistent practice of states --- from the time before the Greco-Turkish War (1897) ⇒ Gulf Wars], the Arab Palestinians should be subject to "War Reparation" penalties and payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during the Israeli-Arab Palestinian conflict (1988 to present).

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

That is true. Even though the war was fought inside Palestine, Palestine (who had no army) was not a party of the conflict. The armistice lines were drawn around and through Palestine to separate the armed forces of those involved. Since the armistice lines specifically were not to be political or territorial boundaries, they had no affect on Palestine's territory or international borders. Palestine remained intact but was divided into three areas of occupation.

Since the armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza went through Palestine, and since they were not borders, it was still Palestine on both sides. To say that the Palestinians violate Israel's territorial integrity is simply not true.

(COMMENT)

There are no Armistice Line today. Other than a set of Historical Reference points, with relationship to the Arab Palestinians bounded by Jordan and Egypt, the borders are with Israel.

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

CHAPTER I - Article 2(7) - UN CHARTER
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

To say that Israel, under the current configuration in which the territorial sovereignty is recognized nw expanded to the limits to which the former Mandate of Palestine once applied. That would make the conflict a "Civil War" between factions (as opposed to an occupation) and the West Bank and Gaza Strip rogue territories. That means "no occupation" under the Arab Palestinian criteria.

IF it is a purely domestic issue (as you claim) THEN the complaint that Israel has done this or that is in violation of Customary and IHL is not more serious than the Annexation f the Crimea by Russia, or the reincorporation of Tibet by China.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

Not so. Palestine is under attack by foreign forces.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is mostly gibberish.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is another one of those, propaganda sounds bites. It has just enough truth in it to fool the casual observer.

Armistice lines are specifically not to be political of territorial borders.

(COMMENT)

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

The General Armistice Agreement between the Egyptian-Israeli Governments S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 has been superseded by the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel. Article XII, Paragraph 2, states that the Armistice l "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." The peaces settlement between the parties was achieved through the Peace Treaty between Egypt-Israel (MAR 1979).

Article II of the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty addresses the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

With the establishment of the treaty, the Armistice is dissolved. There is no Armistice Line.

And even if there was, as in the time prior to the treaty, an Armistice Line is protected to the same degree as the permanent border. Under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625 1970):

"Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."
​

The entire issue of Borders, as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) --- Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) very well knows as been a set element with the Permanent Status of Negotiation under the Article V of The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements Oslo Accords.

"It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."
​

People should not allow themselves to be confused by claims of what the Arab Palestinians have massaged into something that sounds both sound and valid; it is far from it.

Finally: As is "customary" in law [a general and consistent practice of states --- from the time before the Greco-Turkish War (1897) ⇒ Gulf Wars], the Arab Palestinians should be subject to "War Reparation" penalties and payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during the Israeli-Arab Palestinian conflict (1988 to present).

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

That is true. Even though the war was fought inside Palestine, Palestine (who had no army) was not a party of the conflict. The armistice lines were drawn around and through Palestine to separate the armed forces of those involved. Since the armistice lines specifically were not to be political or territorial boundaries, they had no affect on Palestine's territory or international borders. Palestine remained intact but was divided into three areas of occupation.

Since the armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza went through Palestine, and since they were not borders, it was still Palestine on both sides. To say that the Palestinians violate Israel's territorial integrity is simply not true.

(COMMENT)

There are no Armistice Line today. Other than a set of Historical Reference points, with relationship to the Arab Palestinians bounded by Jordan and Egypt, the borders are with Israel.

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

CHAPTER I - Article 2(7) - UN CHARTER
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

To say that Israel, under the current configuration in which the territorial sovereignty is recognized nw expanded to the limits to which the former Mandate of Palestine once applied. That would make the conflict a "Civil War" between factions (as opposed to an occupation) and the West Bank and Gaza Strip rogue territories. That means "no occupation" under the Arab Palestinian criteria.

IF it is a purely domestic issue (as you claim) THEN the complaint that Israel has done this or that is in violation of Customary and IHL is not more serious than the Annexation f the Crimea by Russia, or the reincorporation of Tibet by China.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

Not so. Palestine is under attack by foreign forces.

I'm not finding anything in the news to confirm your claim.

Link?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

In both cases here, it is entirely an open and boldface misrepresentation of the facts.

No history of palestinians They never existed

Ancient history of the Jews

Another Israeli lie.
--------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

No history of palestinians. Palestine was a Roman name imposed on Jews’ land

American archaeologists discover ancient Jewish synagogue in Israel

Lie, lie, lie, Israel is based on lies.

The case raised the issue of the status of those concessions following the demise of the Turkish empire, meaning that the PCIJ needed to determine what kind of entity had replaced Turkey in the territory of Palestine. The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
------------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

The passage in question does not say: Palestine was the Successor State to Turkey --- not at all. It says "the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine, and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, since the year 1921." You may recall from your history, that the Mandate Civil Administration assumed control over the territory in June 1921. Both the two PCIJ Judgments use the same language:

• A02 --- Judgment No. 2 30 August 1924
• A05 --- Judgment of 26 March 1925 (See Page 7)
​

While Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne deals with nationality, it does not establish political sovereignty. Even in the case of nationality, the assignment is to the Government of Palestine under the Administration of the Allied Powers selected Mandate; Great Britain. British civil administration of Palestine began in 1920. Absent the British Administration, there was no Arab self-governing framework.

Most Respectfully,
R










Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

Indeed, that was before Palestine became a state.

A state of Pal'istan?

Link?

 

[Ventura77]

Um, “palestinians” are Arabs. 22 Arab countries exist More than ample self-determination

Jews were originally called “palestinians” in the British Mandate It’s a bogus name

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

I hear Jews mindlessly spouting this rationale as if it contains some esoteric point of merit...the poster explains that because there are other Arab nation the Palestinians should excuse the organized theft of their lands and property and the forced expulsions...the position speaks volumes!!!!

 

[Ventura77]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

In both cases here, it is entirely an open and boldface misrepresentation of the facts.

Another Israeli lie.
--------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

No history of palestinians. Palestine was a Roman name imposed on Jews’ land

American archaeologists discover ancient Jewish synagogue in Israel

Lie, lie, lie, Israel is based on lies.

The case raised the issue of the status of those concessions following the demise of the Turkish empire, meaning that the PCIJ needed to determine what kind of entity had replaced Turkey in the territory of Palestine. The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
------------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

The passage in question does not say: Palestine was the Successor State to Turkey --- not at all. It says "the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine, and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, since the year 1921." You may recall from your history, that the Mandate Civil Administration assumed control over the territory in June 1921. Both the two PCIJ Judgments use the same language:

• A02 --- Judgment No. 2 30 August 1924
• A05 --- Judgment of 26 March 1925 (See Page 7)
​

While Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne deals with nationality, it does not establish political sovereignty. Even in the case of nationality, the assignment is to the Government of Palestine under the Administration of the Allied Powers selected Mandate; Great Britain. British civil administration of Palestine began in 1920. Absent the British Administration, there was no Arab self-governing framework.

Most Respectfully,
R










Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

Indeed, that was before Palestine became a state.

A state of Pal'istan?

Link?

Palestine was a Colonial-Protectorate for most of its long history, applying nation/state qualifications is a weak ploy by uneducated Zionists like yourself...

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is mostly gibberish.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is another one of those, propaganda sounds bites. It has just enough truth in it to fool the casual observer.

Armistice lines are specifically not to be political of territorial borders.

(COMMENT)

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

The General Armistice Agreement between the Egyptian-Israeli Governments S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 has been superseded by the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel. Article XII, Paragraph 2, states that the Armistice l "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." The peaces settlement between the parties was achieved through the Peace Treaty between Egypt-Israel (MAR 1979).

Article II of the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty addresses the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

With the establishment of the treaty, the Armistice is dissolved. There is no Armistice Line.

And even if there was, as in the time prior to the treaty, an Armistice Line is protected to the same degree as the permanent border. Under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625 1970):

"Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."
​

The entire issue of Borders, as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) --- Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) very well knows as been a set element with the Permanent Status of Negotiation under the Article V of The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements Oslo Accords.

"It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."
​

People should not allow themselves to be confused by claims of what the Arab Palestinians have massaged into something that sounds both sound and valid; it is far from it.

Finally: As is "customary" in law [a general and consistent practice of states --- from the time before the Greco-Turkish War (1897) ⇒ Gulf Wars], the Arab Palestinians should be subject to "War Reparation" penalties and payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during the Israeli-Arab Palestinian conflict (1988 to present).

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

That is true. Even though the war was fought inside Palestine, Palestine (who had no army) was not a party of the conflict. The armistice lines were drawn around and through Palestine to separate the armed forces of those involved. Since the armistice lines specifically were not to be political or territorial boundaries, they had no affect on Palestine's territory or international borders. Palestine remained intact but was divided into three areas of occupation.

Since the armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza went through Palestine, and since they were not borders, it was still Palestine on both sides. To say that the Palestinians violate Israel's territorial integrity is simply not true.

(COMMENT)

There are no Armistice Line today. Other than a set of Historical Reference points, with relationship to the Arab Palestinians bounded by Jordan and Egypt, the borders are with Israel.

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

CHAPTER I - Article 2(7) - UN CHARTER
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

To say that Israel, under the current configuration in which the territorial sovereignty is recognized nw expanded to the limits to which the former Mandate of Palestine once applied. That would make the conflict a "Civil War" between factions (as opposed to an occupation) and the West Bank and Gaza Strip rogue territories. That means "no occupation" under the Arab Palestinian criteria.

IF it is a purely domestic issue (as you claim) THEN the complaint that Israel has done this or that is in violation of Customary and IHL is not more serious than the Annexation f the Crimea by Russia, or the reincorporation of Tibet by China.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

Not so. Palestine is under attack by foreign forces.

I'm not finding anything in the news to confirm your claim.

Link?

Its not news. It is olds.

 

[Ventura77]

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Why on Earth would British administrators refer to a Jewish minority as 'Palestinians?"

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ "P F Tinmore, et al,

In both cases here, it is entirely an open and boldface misrepresentation of the facts.

No history of palestinians. Palestine was a Roman name imposed on Jews’ land

American archaeologists discover ancient Jewish synagogue in Israel

Lie, lie, lie, Israel is based on lies.

The case raised the issue of the status of those concessions following the demise of the Turkish empire, meaning that the PCIJ needed to determine what kind of entity had replaced Turkey in the territory of Palestine. The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
------------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

The passage in question does not say: Palestine was the Successor State to Turkey --- not at all. It says "the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine, and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, since the year 1921." You may recall from your history, that the Mandate Civil Administration assumed control over the territory in June 1921. Both the two PCIJ Judgments use the same language:

• A02 --- Judgment No. 2 30 August 1924
• A05 --- Judgment of 26 March 1925 (See Page 7)
​

While Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne deals with nationality, it does not establish political sovereignty. Even in the case of nationality, the assignment is to the Government of Palestine under the Administration of the Allied Powers selected Mandate; Great Britain. British civil administration of Palestine began in 1920. Absent the British Administration, there was no Arab self-governing framework.

Most Respectfully,
R










Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

Ah, yes, and the meaning of Palestine, was defined as the territory to which the Mandate or Order in Council applied.

Indeed, that was before Palestine became a state.

A state of Pal'istan?

Link?

Palestine was a Colonial-Protectorate for most of its long history, applying nation/state qualifications is a weak ploy by uneducated Zionists like yourself...

That's obviously not true...... You make yourself appear pompous.... and.....uneducate......with such......misinformed.....tirades.

 

[Ventura77]

Most Israeli Jews today are indigenous to Israel and the Middle East or descendants of native Jews.

Arabs are indigenous to (Saudi) Arabia,

Apples and oranges.

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

The pogroms are one issue, this is another.

It's the same issue, the same chain of events.
Team Palestine always dodges the issue.
Jewish state and return, was not just a "European project", it was a call that from within the Jewish community in Palestine.The pogroms against Jews in Syria-Palestine were the same as the pogroms in Europe, prior to Zionism.

Zionism was a natural answer, not the cause - to European aggression, as much as Arab aggression.

Q. You can understand who was the aggressor that lead to Kurdish independence movement, but not the the movement for the Jews in Palestine?

Apples and oranges.

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

The pogroms are one issue, this is another.

It's the same issue, the same chain of events.
Team Palestine always dodges the issue.
Jewish state and return, was not just a "European project", it was a call that from within the Jewish community in Palestine.The pogroms against Jews in Syria-Palestine were the same as the pogroms in Europe, prior to Zionism.

Zionism was a natural answer, not the cause - to European aggression, as much as Arab aggression.

Q. You can understand who was the aggressor that lead to Kurdish independence movement, but not the the movement for the Jews in Palestine?

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Wrong Canaanites were the original natives

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Why on Earth would British administrators refer to a Jewish minority as 'Palestinians?"

It was a political thing.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is mostly gibberish.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is another one of those, propaganda sounds bites. It has just enough truth in it to fool the casual observer.

(COMMENT)

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

The General Armistice Agreement between the Egyptian-Israeli Governments S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 has been superseded by the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel. Article XII, Paragraph 2, states that the Armistice l "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." The peaces settlement between the parties was achieved through the Peace Treaty between Egypt-Israel (MAR 1979).

Article II of the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty addresses the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

With the establishment of the treaty, the Armistice is dissolved. There is no Armistice Line.

And even if there was, as in the time prior to the treaty, an Armistice Line is protected to the same degree as the permanent border. Under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625 1970):

"Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."
​

The entire issue of Borders, as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) --- Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) very well knows as been a set element with the Permanent Status of Negotiation under the Article V of The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements Oslo Accords.

"It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."
​

People should not allow themselves to be confused by claims of what the Arab Palestinians have massaged into something that sounds both sound and valid; it is far from it.

Finally: As is "customary" in law [a general and consistent practice of states --- from the time before the Greco-Turkish War (1897) ⇒ Gulf Wars], the Arab Palestinians should be subject to "War Reparation" penalties and payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during the Israeli-Arab Palestinian conflict (1988 to present).

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no (repeat: NO) General of Specific Armistice between the Israelis and any element representing themselves as acting on behalf of the Arab Palestinian.

That is true. Even though the war was fought inside Palestine, Palestine (who had no army) was not a party of the conflict. The armistice lines were drawn around and through Palestine to separate the armed forces of those involved. Since the armistice lines specifically were not to be political or territorial boundaries, they had no affect on Palestine's territory or international borders. Palestine remained intact but was divided into three areas of occupation.

Since the armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza went through Palestine, and since they were not borders, it was still Palestine on both sides. To say that the Palestinians violate Israel's territorial integrity is simply not true.

(COMMENT)

There are no Armistice Line today. Other than a set of Historical Reference points, with relationship to the Arab Palestinians bounded by Jordan and Egypt, the borders are with Israel.

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

CHAPTER I - Article 2(7) - UN CHARTER
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

To say that Israel, under the current configuration in which the territorial sovereignty is recognized nw expanded to the limits to which the former Mandate of Palestine once applied. That would make the conflict a "Civil War" between factions (as opposed to an occupation) and the West Bank and Gaza Strip rogue territories. That means "no occupation" under the Arab Palestinian criteria.

IF it is a purely domestic issue (as you claim) THEN the complaint that Israel has done this or that is in violation of Customary and IHL is not more serious than the Annexation f the Crimea by Russia, or the reincorporation of Tibet by China.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel exercised the right of self-determination... IF we follow your logic, - that everything west of the Jordan River is Arab Palestinians --- THEN it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) and entirely a domestic issue.

Not so. Palestine is under attack by foreign forces.

I'm not finding anything in the news to confirm your claim.

Link?

Its not news. It is olds.

You have been bumping your head too hard at Friday prayers?

 

[Hollie]

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Why on Earth would British administrators refer to a Jewish minority as 'Palestinians?"

It was a political thing.

Yours is a side-step thing.

 

[Ventura77]

Most Israeli Jews today are indigenous to Israel and the Middle East or descendants of native Jews.

Arabs are indigenous to (Saudi) Arabia,

Apples and oranges.

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

The pogroms are one issue, this is another.

It's the same issue, the same chain of events.
Team Palestine always dodges the issue.
Jewish state and return, was not just a "European project", it was a call that from within the Jewish community in Palestine.The pogroms against Jews in Syria-Palestine were the same as the pogroms in Europe, prior to Zionism.

Zionism was a natural answer, not the cause - to European aggression, as much as Arab aggression.

Q. You can understand who was the aggressor that lead to Kurdish independence movement, but not the the movement for the Jews in Palestine?

Apples and oranges.

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

The pogroms are one issue, this is another.

It's the same issue, the same chain of events.
Team Palestine always dodges the issue.
Jewish state and return, was not just a "European project", it was a call that from within the Jewish community in Palestine.The pogroms against Jews in Syria-Palestine were the same as the pogroms in Europe, prior to Zionism.

Zionism was a natural answer, not the cause - to European aggression, as much as Arab aggression.

Q. You can understand who was the aggressor that lead to Kurdish independence movement, but not the the movement for the Jews in Palestine?

Not according to DNA evidence uncovered by a Jewish geneticist...90% of Israelis have no genetic relation to ancient Sephardic Jews...they are the direct descendants of Eastern European Khazar-converts to Judaism...try educating yourself please...

 

[Ventura77]

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Why on Earth would British administrators refer to a Jewish minority as 'Palestinians?"

It was a political thing.

Yours is a side-step thing.

Yours is a propaganda thing...British officials referred to the Arab majority as Palestinians...

 

[Shusha]

Not so. Palestine is under attack by foreign forces.

Israel does not exist outside of the territory in question. Therefore, it is not a foreign entity, but a domestic one. You sure seem to have difficulty understanding sovereignty.

 

[Hollie]

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Why on Earth would British administrators refer to a Jewish minority as 'Palestinians?"

It was a political thing.

Yours is a side-step thing.

Yours is a propaganda thing...British officials referred to the Arab majority as Palestinians...

Sorry, pointless. Here in the Great Satan there are references to folks as Bible Belt'ers. There are colloquial references to folks in the Appalachian mountains. Brits refer to us here in the Great Satan as Yanks.

Your.....propaganda.....is........pointless. <------(note my use of "......")

 

[Shusha]

...they are the direct descendants of Eastern European Khazar-converts to Judaism...try educating yourself please...

The poster spouting the long and thoroughly debunked Khazar nonsense wants us to educate ourselves.