Why Do Palestinians Lie About Wanting Peace? And Two States?

[Roudy]

By the way, MLK did say "when people criticize Zionism they mean Jews".

Make no mistake.

 

[Roudy]

It's best you don't attempt to actually address the comments of others.

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation.

You forget that all of the time.

The Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories have a perceived right to acts of Islamic terrorism. They also own the consequences of those acts.

Another generation of Islamo-bots who know nothing but welfare fraud and silly slogans about "resistance". Those at the top of the pyramid scheme called UNRWA who are stashing away millions of infidel welfare dollars for their personal gain owe you a debt of gratitude, but not a dime in hard currency. People like you are the stooges who the primary welfare thieves stand on the necks of to stuff their bank accounts.

This man knows a lot more than a ZioNazi bot.

This man knows more than an IslamoNazi bot:

By the way, MLK never stated:

"When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–make no mistake about it.”

It is Zionist propaganda. But of course that's all you post. You will never find a video where he said any such thing, just Zionist claims that he said it.

It really bothers antisemites when they see that a civil rights advocate and American hero was such a strong supporter of Israel and the Jewish people.

"I have a dream" for peace in the Middle East / King's special bond with Israel

During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation.

You forget that all of the time.

The Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories have a perceived right to acts of Islamic terrorism. They also own the consequences of those acts.

Another generation of Islamo-bots who know nothing but welfare fraud and silly slogans about "resistance". Those at the top of the pyramid scheme called UNRWA who are stashing away millions of infidel welfare dollars for their personal gain owe you a debt of gratitude, but not a dime in hard currency. People like you are the stooges who the primary welfare thieves stand on the necks of to stuff their bank accounts.

This man knows a lot more than a ZioNazi bot.

This man knows more than an IslamoNazi bot:

By the way, MLK never stated:

"When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–make no mistake about it.”

It is Zionist propaganda. But of course that's all you post. You will never find a video where he said any such thing, just Zionist claims that he said it.

It really bothers antisemites when they see that a civil rights advocate and American hero was such a strong supporter of Israel and the Jewish people.

"I have a dream" for peace in the Middle East / King's special bond with Israel

During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.

Indeed, like most people in the US, he was misinformed.

 

[montelatici]

By the way, MLK did say "when people criticize Zionism they mean Jews".

Make no mistake.

Find a video where he said it.

Wikiquote, not to be confused with Wkipedia:

"This quote on Zionism has been widely exposed as a hoax; even the pro-Israel group CAMERA admits that this is "apparently" a hoax."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

 

[José]

Despite the fact that he never equated anti-zionism with anti-semitism, Luther King's words in that interview reflect to a great extent his deep gratitude for the prominent role played by the jewish american community in the civil rights movement.

 

[José]

And Tinmore's explanation is also true.

Even today in 2016, with all the holes in the zionist narrative brought about by the Internet, the american mass media still bombards the average american with an overwhelmingly pro-Israel point of view.

As someone born and raised in Latin America I was exposed to only a fraction of the pro-Israel propaganda that reigned supreme in the United States until recently...

But I can attest to the fact that it was still more than enough to make a zionist out of almost anyone.

To tell you the truth, I consider a small "miracle" that americans like Tinmore and Montelatici manage to see through the barrage of historic falsehoods and dehumanisation of the palestinian people and gather enough inner strength to support the palestinian cause given the virtual monopoly enjoyed by the zionist narrative in the US during their formative years and until a few years ago (and still present to a lesser extent).

Just like we talk about the survivors of Dresden and Hiroshima, I consider them to be "survivors" of the massive pro-Israel propaganda US citizens are subjected to.

Now if you want to find out the level of Zionist indoctrination Luther King was subjected to in the 50's and 60's, take the present (still huge) level and multiply it by 10.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is because it is simply NOT true. That is not a right.

​

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation.

You forget that all of the time.

(COMMENT)

The truth is the exact opposite. Protected persons must nevertheless obey legitimate orders issued by the Occupying Power.

INTERNATIONAL LAW SAYS:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
​

I've noticed that you have asserted this fictitious right quite often.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958
ARTICLE 68 -- PENAL LEGISLATION: V. PENALTIES.
DEATH PENALTY

PARAGRAPH 1. -- PENALTIES INVOLVING LOSS OF LIBERTY

1. ' Offences '

Paragraph 1 deals with offences the consequences of which are not serious for the Occupying Power. Such offences are only punishable by "simple" imprisonment or internment, while those which have serious consequences for the Occupying Power may be punished by penalties of much greater severity, even the death penalty, subject to the conditions laid down in the three following paragraphs.
The minor offences must have been "solely" intended to harm the Occupying Power. The inclusion of the word "solely" excludes acts which harm the Occupying Power indirectly.

2. ' Sanctions '

Internment is a preventive administrative measure and cannot be considered a penal sanction. It is nevertheless mentioned here under the same head as simple imprisonment, because the authors of the Convention wished to make it possible for the military courts of the Occupying Power to give persons guilty of minor offences the benefit of the conditions of internment provided for in Articles 79 et sqq. The provision was a humane one and was intended to draw a distinction between such offenders and common criminals.
As several delegations at the Geneva Conference pointed out, "simple" imprisonment was intended to mean imprisonment "of the least severe kind". It will be seen, incidentally, in the comments on Article 76, that protected persons must always "if possible, be separated from other detainees", that is from common criminals. The application of the paragraph under discussion provides a special opportunity for carrying out this recommendation.
It should be noted that internment and imprisonment are only mentioned as maximum penalties, and less severe penalties still, such as placing under arrest or fines, may be applied in the case of persons accused of minor offences.
​

PARAGRAPH 2. -- DEATH PENALTY

1. ' Offences '

In the Commentary on Article 5, it was noted that the Convention does not define the meaning of "espionage" or "sabotage". It is only "serious" acts of sabotage that are referred to here. This qualification was added by the Diplomatic Conference in view of the tendency of belligerents to interpret "sabotage" in a very broad sense. The destruction of an air base, or of a line of communication of strategic importance, is a serious act of sabotage; on the other hand individual acts such as stoppage of work or refusing to obey orders when carrying out some imposed task cannot be punished by the Occupying Power as acts of sabotage, in spite of the damage they may cause it.
In view of the difficulty of defining, a priori, acts which may be described as serious acts of sabotage, it will be for the courts to make a decision in each individual case, objectively weighing all the circumstances.
The words "intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons" provide a clear indication of the difference between the serious offences under consideration and the offences referred to in paragraph 1, whose characteristic feature is, in fact, that they do not involve anyone's death.

2. ' Reservation in regard to local legislation '

Use of the death penalty, which may only be imposed for three types of offence, espionage, serious sabotage, and intentional homicide, is subject to a condition: namely, that the death penalty was provided for similar cases under the law in force before the occupation began.
It was this clause, introduced by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference, which caused the greatest conflict of opinion at the Diplomatic Conference in 1949 when the law of occupation was under discussion.
Those who opposed the reservation argued that it would create an inequality of treatment between the populations of different occupied territories, according to whether capital punishment already existed in a territory or not. They claimed that it would in any case be possible for the defeated side to promulgate a law or decree abolishing the death penalty at the last moment before their territory was occupied, thus depriving the Occupying Power of a most effective means of repression at a time when reprisals against individuals and the taking of hostages were forbidden. Those in favour of this most important safeguard, however, reminded the Conference of the crimes perpetrated under the cover of penal jurisdiction in certain occupied countries during the Second World War. They dwelt on the fact that patriotic agitation was ethically correct and that patriots guilty of offences which were punishable by death must not be hastily and irrevocably condemned. In their opinion this reservation in regard to national legislation would represent a
valuable victory for the forces of humanity.
The clause in question was finally adopted after every aspect of the question had been discussed in detail and at great length; but when the Conventions were signed several delegations made express reservations in regard to this point.
The Convention does not indicate the penalties which may be inflicted on persons guilty of serious offences for which the law of the country does not provide for the death penalty; the courts will be completely free to decide the matter, having at their disposal the penalties recognized by the legislation in force (long terms of imprisonment, solitary confinement, penal servitude).
It should be pointed out that the words "law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began" should be taken to mean the positive penal law of that territory as it existed at the time the occupation began, within the meaning of Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. The expression includes wartime law, both when such provisions enter into force automatically on the outbreak of war and when special legislation has been promulgated by the government of the occupied territory. As is known, military penal codes sometimes contain Articles which are applicable only in wartime, or prescribe penalties of greater severity for certain offences when they are committed in wartime.
​

PARAGRAPH 3. -- SPECIAL CONDITION

This clause may be compared with the provision in Article 67 which lays down that the courts of the occupying authorities are to "take into consideration the fact that the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power". Consideration must, in fact, be given to the particular position in which the protected person finds himself. He is not a national of the Occupying Power, but on the contrary the inhabitant of a country which is suffering as a result of its invasion and occupation by its enemies. The judge should take these extenuating circumstances into account and reduce the penalty accordingly.
The words "duty of allegiance" constitute an acknowledgment of the fundamental principle according to which the occupation does not sever the bond existing between the inhabitants and the conquered State. Protected persons must nevertheless obey legitimate orders issued by the Occupying Power.
This provision is also to be found in Articles 87 and 100 of the Third Convention and in Article 118 of the present Convention.
​

PARAGRAPH 4. -- AGE LIMIT

This clause originated in a proposal made at the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference by the International Union for Child Welfare. It makes eighteen years the absolute age limit below which the death penalty may not be inflicted, even if all the other conditions which make that penalty applicable are present.
The clause corresponds to similar provisions in the penal codes of many countries, and is based on the idea that a person who has not reached the age of eighteen years is not fully capable of sound judgment, does not always realize the significance of his actions and often acts under the influence of others, if not under constraint.
​

It cannot be the case that International Law can punish a Protected Person (the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip) on the one hand, and free them to commit offense ending in harm to the Occupation Power.

I understand that the Palestinian Mantra of Jihad and Resistance sound authentically heroic; but, these things are not legal and are not a right --- in any sense of the word.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are definitely misunderstanding the meaning of article 68 and how it is applied.

 

[Roudy]

By the way, MLK did say "when people criticize Zionism they mean Jews".

Make no mistake.

Find a video where he said it.

Wikiquote, not to be confused with Wkipedia:

"This quote on Zionism has been widely exposed as a hoax; even the pro-Israel group CAMERA admits that this is "apparently" a hoax."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

"Find a video where he said it"?

Ha ha ha. What, like almost 50 years ago?

The quote is true, as was the clip about Israel being the only democracy in the region and having the right to exist.

 

[Roudy]

The Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories have a perceived right to acts of Islamic terrorism. They also own the consequences of those acts.

Another generation of Islamo-bots who know nothing but welfare fraud and silly slogans about "resistance". Those at the top of the pyramid scheme called UNRWA who are stashing away millions of infidel welfare dollars for their personal gain owe you a debt of gratitude, but not a dime in hard currency. People like you are the stooges who the primary welfare thieves stand on the necks of to stuff their bank accounts.

This man knows a lot more than a ZioNazi bot.

This man knows more than an IslamoNazi bot:

By the way, MLK never stated:

"When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–make no mistake about it.”

It is Zionist propaganda. But of course that's all you post. You will never find a video where he said any such thing, just Zionist claims that he said it.

It really bothers antisemites when they see that a civil rights advocate and American hero was such a strong supporter of Israel and the Jewish people.

"I have a dream" for peace in the Middle East / King's special bond with Israel

During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.

Indeed, like most people in the US, he was misinformed.

Not as informed as you Hamas terrorist supporters, I bet.

 

[Roudy]

Despite the fact that he never equated anti-zionism with anti-semitism, Luther King's words in that interview reflect to a great extent his deep gratitude for the prominent role played by the jewish american community in the civil rights movement.

He actually totally did equate antizionism with antisemitism, in public.

You think it was because he didn't want to upset his Jewish supporters? Sure sure.

 

[montelatici]

By the way, MLK did say "when people criticize Zionism they mean Jews".

Make no mistake.

Find a video where he said it.

Wikiquote, not to be confused with Wkipedia:

"This quote on Zionism has been widely exposed as a hoax; even the pro-Israel group CAMERA admits that this is "apparently" a hoax."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

"Find a video where he said it"?

Ha ha ha. What, like almost 50 years ago?

The quote is true, as was the clip about Israel being the only democracy in the region and having the right to exist.

Your nervous ha, ha ,ha seems to ignore the fact that you refer to a video from 50 years ago and then you make it appear that it would be impossible to find a video from 50 years ago.
Here is a video of MLK from 50 years ago.



No one can find the quote anywhere. Some claim that he said it but the letter that contained the quote was a fraud as admitted by CAMERA.

 

[Roudy]

By the way, MLK did say "when people criticize Zionism they mean Jews".

Make no mistake.

Find a video where he said it.

Wikiquote, not to be confused with Wkipedia:

"This quote on Zionism has been widely exposed as a hoax; even the pro-Israel group CAMERA admits that this is "apparently" a hoax."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

"Find a video where he said it"?

Ha ha ha. What, like almost 50 years ago?

The quote is true, as was the clip about Israel being the only democracy in the region and having the right to exist.

Your nervous ha, ha ,ha seems to ignore the fact that you refer to a video from 50 years ago and then you make it appear that it would be impossible to find a video from 50 years ago.
Here is a video of MLK from 50 years ago.



No one can find the quote anywhere. Some claim that he said it but the letter that contained the quote was a fraud as admitted by CAMERA.

No, they didn't video every event 50 years ago, especially considering that this was a minor event at Harvard. But yes, it did happen and he did say it, and it was recorded and documented.

The "ha ha ha" is me laughing at a pathetic, desperate antisemite who spends all his living breathing hours spreading meaningless Jew hate on an insignificant anonymous message board.

MLK Supported Israel

".....without question, spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. at a dinner in Cambridge, MA, shortly before he was assassinated. At that dinner, he rebuked a student who made an anti-Zionist remark, saying, 'When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism.' (See, e.g., 'The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel' by Seymour Martin Lipset; Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24.)"

The Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver said: “to condemn the Jewish survival doctrine of Zionism as racism is a travesty upon the truth.” Vernon Jordan, the National Urban League president, wrote: “Black people, who recognize code words since we’ve been victimized by code words like ‘forced busing,’ ‘law and order,’ and others, can easily smell out the fact that ‘Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism."

Note how anxious Israel’s enemies are to rush and cry “foul,” trying to dismiss King’s clear support for Israel and Zionism. They cannot reconcile King's greatness and his support for Israel, just as it is hard for anti-Zionist gay activists to reconcile their support for gay rights and Israel’s progressive policies in that arena. As we celebrate Dr. King’s memory, let’s honor his memory by condemning this hoax-hoax, repudiating the “pinkwashing” charge, and, as we note the authenticity of his support for Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before; but I don't think you understand it.

Here again you are basing your conclusions of false premise. You have heard the saying: "The land does not belong to the people. The people belong to the land." This is the basis of international law. The rules of state succession say that the people become the nationals of the successor state. Following international law, the Treaty of Lausanne says:

“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.”​

Also following international law the Palestinian citizenship order says:

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

All peoples (the people of a defined territory) have a standard set of inalienable rights.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

These rights have been stated in many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine.

Your premise is that power politics supersede or negate international law and inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

In reference to you first Quotation: Derivative of Section II - Nationality - Article 30 - Treaty of Lausanne.

•√• Corrected Quote: "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.

1) Nowhere in the Treaty does it speak directly to a place known as "Palestine."
2) The habitual resident was given Citizenship under the Order in Council and then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
3) There was no State to which to make them nations of... "such territory is transferred." It was yet to be determined. The territory was formerly district and provinces under the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
4) Section II is specifically addressing the issue of Nationality and not independence or sovereignty.
​

•√• Reference the comment of "self determination without external interference."

1) The OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic relinquished all TITLE AND RIGHTS, to the Allied Powers; Including the right to direct the future of these territories being settled --- or --- to be settled by the parties concerned.
2) All people of the territory to which the Mandate Applied have the right to self-determination. That includes the Jewish immigrants that were encouraged to willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
3) The treaty has no being on the right to independence and sovereignty. The establishment of the Mandate over the territory was a vehicle to implement the requirement to reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory.
4) The territorial integrity was at the discretion of the Allied Powers; not determined by the Arab Palestinians.
​

•√• Reference the observation: "many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine."

1) Yes, while there are many feel-good Resolutions pertaining to the Palestinians, very, very few of them are binding resolutions.
2) There is no law that prohibits the Jewish people from exercising their right of self-determination in the establishment of a Jewish State following the UN approved and adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence."
3) There was no law, Mandate, Order, Agreement, Convention or Treaty that prohibited the establishment in Palestine (the territory under Mandate) of a national home for the Jewish people.
4) The last of the Official Recognitions of the State of Palestine was addressed in A/67/L.28 -- "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." The territory occupied since 1967 is somewhat different than those demands made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (see Posting #32). This is the Observer Status that the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
​

Remember, the Jewish Immigrants had the same citizenship as the Arab Inhabitants. Thus, the establishment of the Jewish State, as recalled UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as mentioned in the UN Resolution of November 2012, does not constitute "external influence." However, the introduction of Foreign Troops by the Arab League does.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Nobody has the right or the authority to violate the rights of others.

Yet you constantly advocate violating the rights of the Jews to a NATIONal home, free determination, sovereignty and to defend against acts of war, terrorism and violence. Care to explain why this is ?

Israeli talking points.

NO FACTS PROVEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS MANY TIMES.

Do the Jews of Palestine and those covered by the international laws of 1920, 1921, 1923 and 1925 not also have the right to a NATIONal Home, free determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity on land granted to them by the sovereign owners ?
Or should they be ruled by arab muslims who have it as part of their religion to " KILL THE JEWS "


All you have is islamonazi propaganda, LIES, blood libels and talking points. You have no evidence that is from an unbiased non partisan source

 

[Phoenall]

It's an odd notion that HoAP's provoking an Israeli retaliation by committing acts of war (launching rockets at population centers) is defending ones country.

Such acts are perfectly consistent with Islamic terrorists promoting the goals of the Hamas Charter.

Oh no, not more Israeli terrorist propaganda crap.

It's best you don't attempt to actually address the comments of others.

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation.

You forget that all of the time.

The Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories have a perceived right to acts of Islamic terrorism. They also own the consequences of those acts.

Another generation of Islamo-bots who know nothing but welfare fraud and silly slogans about "resistance". Those at the top of the pyramid scheme called UNRWA who are stashing away millions of infidel welfare dollars for their personal gain owe you a debt of gratitude, but not a dime in hard currency. People like you are the stooges who the primary welfare thieves stand on the necks of to stuff their bank accounts.

This man knows a lot more than a ZioNazi bot.

I would not take the word of a self confessed terrorist mass murderer

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before; but I don't think you understand it.

Here again you are basing your conclusions of false premise. You have heard the saying: "The land does not belong to the people. The people belong to the land." This is the basis of international law. The rules of state succession say that the people become the nationals of the successor state. Following international law, the Treaty of Lausanne says:

“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.”​

Also following international law the Palestinian citizenship order says:

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

All peoples (the people of a defined territory) have a standard set of inalienable rights.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

These rights have been stated in many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine.

Your premise is that power politics supersede or negate international law and inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

In reference to you first Quotation: Derivative of Section II - Nationality - Article 30 - Treaty of Lausanne.

•√• Corrected Quote: "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.

1) Nowhere in the Treaty does it speak directly to a place known as "Palestine."
2) The habitual resident was given Citizenship under the Order in Council and then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
3) There was no State to which to make them nations of... "such territory is transferred." It was yet to be determined. The territory was formerly district and provinces under the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
4) Section II is specifically addressing the issue of Nationality and not independence or sovereignty.
​

•√• Reference the comment of "self determination without external interference."

1) The OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic relinquished all TITLE AND RIGHTS, to the Allied Powers; Including the right to direct the future of these territories being settled --- or --- to be settled by the parties concerned.
2) All people of the territory to which the Mandate Applied have the right to self-determination. That includes the Jewish immigrants that were encouraged to willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
3) The treaty has no being on the right to independence and sovereignty. The establishment of the Mandate over the territory was a vehicle to implement the requirement to reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory.
4) The territorial integrity was at the discretion of the Allied Powers; not determined by the Arab Palestinians.
​

•√• Reference the observation: "many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine."

1) Yes, while there are many feel-good Resolutions pertaining to the Palestinians, very, very few of them are binding resolutions.
2) There is no law that prohibits the Jewish people from exercising their right of self-determination in the establishment of a Jewish State following the UN approved and adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence."
3) There was no law, Mandate, Order, Agreement, Convention or Treaty that prohibited the establishment in Palestine (the territory under Mandate) of a national home for the Jewish people.
4) The last of the Official Recognitions of the State of Palestine was addressed in A/67/L.28 -- "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." The territory occupied since 1967 is somewhat different than those demands made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (see Posting #32). This is the Observer Status that the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
​

Remember, the Jewish Immigrants had the same citizenship as the Arab Inhabitants. Thus, the establishment of the Jewish State, as recalled UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as mentioned in the UN Resolution of November 2012, does not constitute "external influence." However, the introduction of Foreign Troops by the Arab League does.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Nobody has the right or the authority to violate the rights of others.

Yet you constantly advocate violating the rights of the Jews to a NATIONal home, free determination, sovereignty and to defend against acts of war, terrorism and violence. Care to explain why this is ?

Israeli talking points.

NO FACTS PROVEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS MANY TIMES.

Do the Jews of Palestine and those covered by the international laws of 1920, 1921, 1923 and 1925 not also have the right to a NATIONal Home, free determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity on land granted to them by the sovereign owners ?
Or should they be ruled by arab muslims who have it as part of their religion to " KILL THE JEWS "


All you have is islamonazi propaganda, LIES, blood libels and talking points. You have no evidence that is from an unbiased non partisan source

No land was transferred to the Jews for a Jewish state. Your so called national home was the right for Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before; but I don't think you understand it.

(COMMENT)

In reference to you first Quotation: Derivative of Section II - Nationality - Article 30 - Treaty of Lausanne.

•√• Corrected Quote: "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.

1) Nowhere in the Treaty does it speak directly to a place known as "Palestine."
2) The habitual resident was given Citizenship under the Order in Council and then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
3) There was no State to which to make them nations of... "such territory is transferred." It was yet to be determined. The territory was formerly district and provinces under the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
4) Section II is specifically addressing the issue of Nationality and not independence or sovereignty.
​

•√• Reference the comment of "self determination without external interference."

1) The OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic relinquished all TITLE AND RIGHTS, to the Allied Powers; Including the right to direct the future of these territories being settled --- or --- to be settled by the parties concerned.
2) All people of the territory to which the Mandate Applied have the right to self-determination. That includes the Jewish immigrants that were encouraged to willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
3) The treaty has no being on the right to independence and sovereignty. The establishment of the Mandate over the territory was a vehicle to implement the requirement to reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory.
4) The territorial integrity was at the discretion of the Allied Powers; not determined by the Arab Palestinians.
​

•√• Reference the observation: "many UN resolutions including specifically for the Palestinians in Palestine."

1) Yes, while there are many feel-good Resolutions pertaining to the Palestinians, very, very few of them are binding resolutions.
2) There is no law that prohibits the Jewish people from exercising their right of self-determination in the establishment of a Jewish State following the UN approved and adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence."
3) There was no law, Mandate, Order, Agreement, Convention or Treaty that prohibited the establishment in Palestine (the territory under Mandate) of a national home for the Jewish people.
4) The last of the Official Recognitions of the State of Palestine was addressed in A/67/L.28 -- "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." The territory occupied since 1967 is somewhat different than those demands made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (see Posting #32). This is the Observer Status that the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
​

Remember, the Jewish Immigrants had the same citizenship as the Arab Inhabitants. Thus, the establishment of the Jewish State, as recalled UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as mentioned in the UN Resolution of November 2012, does not constitute "external influence." However, the introduction of Foreign Troops by the Arab League does.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Nobody has the right or the authority to violate the rights of others.

Yet you constantly advocate violating the rights of the Jews to a NATIONal home, free determination, sovereignty and to defend against acts of war, terrorism and violence. Care to explain why this is ?

Israeli talking points.

NO FACTS PROVEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS MANY TIMES.

Do the Jews of Palestine and those covered by the international laws of 1920, 1921, 1923 and 1925 not also have the right to a NATIONal Home, free determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity on land granted to them by the sovereign owners ?
Or should they be ruled by arab muslims who have it as part of their religion to " KILL THE JEWS "


All you have is islamonazi propaganda, LIES, blood libels and talking points. You have no evidence that is from an unbiased non partisan source

No land was transferred to the Jews for a Jewish state. Your so called national home was the right for Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

Read the treaty again as it clearly says that the land was transferred to the Jews. You are defeated at every turn because you refuse to accept the truth. The Mandate of Palestine says this more than once and still you deny that it is so.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nobody has the right or the authority to violate the rights of others.

Yet you constantly advocate violating the rights of the Jews to a NATIONal home, free determination, sovereignty and to defend against acts of war, terrorism and violence. Care to explain why this is ?

Israeli talking points.

NO FACTS PROVEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS MANY TIMES.

Do the Jews of Palestine and those covered by the international laws of 1920, 1921, 1923 and 1925 not also have the right to a NATIONal Home, free determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity on land granted to them by the sovereign owners ?
Or should they be ruled by arab muslims who have it as part of their religion to " KILL THE JEWS "


All you have is islamonazi propaganda, LIES, blood libels and talking points. You have no evidence that is from an unbiased non partisan source

No land was transferred to the Jews for a Jewish state. Your so called national home was the right for Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

Read the treaty again as it clearly says that the land was transferred to the Jews. You are defeated at every turn because you refuse to accept the truth. The Mandate of Palestine says this more than once and still you deny that it is so.

Link?

 

[Phoenall]

Yet you constantly advocate violating the rights of the Jews to a NATIONal home, free determination, sovereignty and to defend against acts of war, terrorism and violence. Care to explain why this is ?

Israeli talking points.

NO FACTS PROVEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS MANY TIMES.

Do the Jews of Palestine and those covered by the international laws of 1920, 1921, 1923 and 1925 not also have the right to a NATIONal Home, free determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity on land granted to them by the sovereign owners ?
Or should they be ruled by arab muslims who have it as part of their religion to " KILL THE JEWS "


All you have is islamonazi propaganda, LIES, blood libels and talking points. You have no evidence that is from an unbiased non partisan source

No land was transferred to the Jews for a Jewish state. Your so called national home was the right for Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

Read the treaty again as it clearly says that the land was transferred to the Jews. You are defeated at every turn because you refuse to accept the truth. The Mandate of Palestine says this more than once and still you deny that it is so.

Link?

Mandate of Palestine that is on here from today

 

[Shusha]

No land was transferred to the Jews for a Jewish state. Your so called national home was the right for Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

Well, no. The land was given over (as you, yourself, has stated many times) to the inhabitants who, through following certain specific steps, grew into the right of self-governance and self-determination. Those people were -- quite specifically -- the Jewish people, who, by a pre-existing, historical claim, were granted the right by the authorities of the time to re-constitute their national homeland.

The flaw in your argument is in the mistaken assumption that the Jewish people are somehow excluded from having rights greater than "citizenship" when the documents of the time clearly state the political rights to a nation granted to the Jewish people.

 

[montelatici]

No land was transferred to the Jews for a Jewish state. Your so called national home was the right for Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

Well, no. The land was given over (as you, yourself, has stated many times) to the inhabitants who, through following certain specific steps, grew into the right of self-governance and self-determination. Those people were -- quite specifically -- the Jewish people, who, by a pre-existing, historical claim, were granted the right by the authorities of the time to re-constitute their national homeland.

The flaw in your argument is in the mistaken assumption that the Jewish people are somehow excluded from having rights greater than "citizenship" when the documents of the time clearly state the political rights to a nation granted to the Jewish people.

What pre-existing historical claim did the European Zionists have? The native inhabitants would have a stronger claim than Europeans, don't you think? Because the native inhabitants converted to Christianity and Islam, does not change their status as the native inhabitants. The native americans that have converted to Christianity are no less "native" than before they converted.