All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Hollie]

In the case of the “A” mandates, a definite nationality or its
equivalent has been created; in Iraq, by Iraq law of October 9, 1924; in Palestine, by British Order in Council of July 24, 1925. The latter created a Palestinian citizenship which is equivalent to nationality.

The genesis of the mandate system as idea and policy during the war of 1914-18 will not be clear until full access can be had to the archives of London and Washington. It is the evolution of* official thinking which is the all-important part of the story. One corner of the veil was lifted recently by Viscount Samuel, a member of the British Cabinet in the first part of the war.’ Memoranda and notes of conversations quoted by him show that as early as November, 1914, through March, 1915, the ideas that led to the Palestine mandate were being discussed with the British Foreign Office and the Cabinet, and the discussion led straight back to the nineteenth-century mandate experiments of the powers in Turkey described above. The various possible alternative means of establishing a Jewish homeland, whether by annexation or by a British protectorate or by internationalization, were all discussed. A conversation on February 5, 1915, written down on that day, records Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary, as doubting “the possibility or desirability of the establishment of a British Protectorate” and suggesting several possibilities, including neutralization "under international guarantee,” an international commission to control the Holy Places, or, if Turkey were to remain suzerain, “a regime somewhat like that of Lebanon, but with the governor appointed by the Powers.” ® In 1915, it was already clearly foreseen that the idea of a Jewish state run on democratic lines was impracticable since the great majority of the inhabitants were Arabs.

On February 18, 1947, the Foreign Secretary informed Parliament of the government’s decision to lay the matter before the General Assembly of the United Nations at its regular meeting in September. This would be done with an historical account of the discharge of the trust since the inception of the mandate, but without recommendations as to a settlement of the problem. “We shall explain,” he said, “that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable.”

Full text of "Mandates Dependencies And Trusteeship"
----------------
Duh, it took you 30 years to figure that out?

It’s about time the Arabs-Moslems returned to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.

 

[Coyote]

Last week I reported that a major Netflix movie, The Old Story, was being filmed in Jordan as a stand-in for Israel, and filming was stopped when angry residents complained that Jews would be present for a scene where a terrorist hides in a mosque after a bombing.

Now, the Minister of Islamic Affairs in Jordan is trying to reassure residents that they have nothing to fear.

After investigation, he is pleased to announce that not a single Jew is involved in the filming in Jordan.

Coyote

THIS is why there is no equivalence between stone throwers. THIS is the underlying context.

I don’t agree with you when it comes to stone throwers. Whether Arab or Jew, the underlying hate driving them is the same. Adults don’t throw stones at kids out of love.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

.... ⟴ As a result, five new states come into existence: Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Transjordan (which later changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). In the execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, the League of Nations placed these new states under mandates: Lebanon and Syria under a French mandate, and Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan under British mandates. Iraq, however, rebelled and proclaimed its independence.

(COMMENT)

"New states" came into existence, but NOT as a result of Article 22 or the Treaty. It was a result of decisions made by "certain" members of the Allied Powers. The League of Nations (LoN) Covenant, was an agreement between the parties to the LoN. Not the inhabitance. In fact, the inhabitance of the Region had nothing to do with the agreement.

If any part of the agreement was abrogated, violated or ignored, it was of NO business of the inhabitance of the Region. The Covenant was not written as a bond → but in such a way that it could be amended between the parties; without regard to the wishes of the inhabitance of the Region.

Under international law, the legal effect of the detachment of Palestine from Turkey and the recognition by Article 22 of the Covenant the League of Nations of the existence of its inhabitants as "an independent nation" was to make of Palestine a state under the law of nations in which was vested sovereignty over the country. [2]

(COMMENT)

Palestine, nor any of the Regions that came under Mandate by name, were detached from Turkey. The territory under discussion was detached in the form of Article 3 • SECTION I • TERRITORIAL CLAUSES •
Lausanne Treaty Part I:

ARTICLE 3.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(1) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.​

Let me repeat (I say again)→ The notion that there was some sort of automatic activation of the new states is essentially wrong. The establishment of (what has become today) Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel (Isreal + West Bank + Gaza Strip) was totally a decision principally by the Allied Powers of Great Britain and France. It was initially decided into Areas "A" for France and "B" for Great Britain in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This was not a determination involving the inhabitance of the Region.

No alternate history will change those decisions, and no manipulation of the facts will lead to a differing outcome.

The fact that Palestine was placed under a mandate did not affect the statehood of Palestine nor divest its people of sovereignty over their country.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is simply wrong. It was a subdivision of the territory known as Syria which the Allied Powers designated "Palestine."

The concept of mandates was one of a temporary arrangement having as its aim, in the words of Article 22 of the Covenant, the rendering to the peoples of the mandated territory of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they were able to stand alone. It is obvious that the Mandatory did not acquire title or sovereignty over the mandated territory.

(COMMENT)

Well, Article 22 did not assign or apportion the territory. But there is absolutely NO QUESTION that Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, records the disposition of all title and rights passing from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the Allied Powers (collectively).

The legal status of Palestine as one of the "A" mandated territories had close similarity to that of a protected state. [3] Palestine possessed an international personality which was distinct from that of the British government as Mandatory power. The Government of Palestine, as representative of the people and territory of Palestine, concluded agreements with the Mandatory power and treaties with third states through the instrumentality of Great Britain. The possession by Palestine of an international personality of its own thus distinguished its status from that, for example, of the territory of South West Africa. In the case of the latter, the Supreme Court of South Africa held that since German sovereignty over it was extinguished, and the territory survived only as a geographical entity and did not become an international person in its own right, its juristic personality had terminated. [4] This clearly was not the case of Palestine.

On the other hand, the Mandate did not divest the state or the people of Palestine of their sovereignty over the country. Professor Pic was one of the first writers to proclaim the principle that sovereignty lies in the inhabitants of the mandated territory.

(COMMENT)

This (in its entirety) is manipulated babble. It would take all evening to untangle this mess and reassemble it in the proper order and context. The status of the Government of Palestine, under the Mandate and assignment to Great Britain, is best-explained in part in: UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT: Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

"Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
​

In fact, there now exists a fairly general consensus that sovereignty lies in the people of the mandate territory.

(COMMENT)

No, this is entirely wrong and generated for the purpose of political propaganda.

The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions | The Institute for Palestine Studies

(COMMENT)

It would be (very) interesting for me to see exactly what actual "LAW" you are referring to here. In any event, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have, in their belligerents to pursue the avenues towards a peaceful settlement, will continue to experience the consequences of those actions and decisions.

Most Respectfully,
R

In fact, there now exists a fairly general consensus that sovereignty lies in the people of the mandate territory.

(COMMENT)

No, this is entirely wrong and generated for the purpose of political propaganda.

Link?

 

[Shusha]

I don’t agree with you when it comes to stone throwers. Whether Arab or Jew, the underlying hate driving them is the same. Adults don’t throw stones at kids out of love.

You want to pretend that all hate is the same hate. And that there is no difference between those whose hatred is such that they can't permit the other into their spaces and those who fear such people.

 

[Coyote]

I suspect both Anti-Israeli Posters and Anti-Palestinian posters will not want to read or discuss this but it’s a really thoughtful, observant and respectful article..very human, worth a read.

A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers
A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers

 

[Coyote]

I don’t agree with you when it comes to stone throwers. Whether Arab or Jew, the underlying hate driving them is the same. Adults don’t throw stones at kids out of love.

You want to pretend that all hate is the same hate. And that there is no difference between those whose hatred is such that they can't permit the other into their spaces and those who fear such people.

Don’t you think the Palestinians might fear the Israeli’s for much the same reasons?

 

[Shusha]

Don’t you think the Palestinians might fear the Israeli’s for much the same reasons?

There ARE no "same reasons".

 

[Coyote]

Don’t you think the Palestinians might fear the Israeli’s for much the same reasons?

There ARE no "same reasons". Where in the world are Jews demanding that no Arab be their presence?

Some are.

Beyond that there are many reasons for fear and distrust including loss of land and homes, violence, kids incarcerated as adults, etc. you are choosing to ignore it when you seem to imply Palestinians have no valid reasons to fear and hate.

 

[Shusha]

I suspect both Anti-Israeli Posters and Anti-Palestinian posters will not want to read or discuss this but it’s a really thoughtful, observant and respectful article..very human, worth a read.

A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers
A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers

It has some factual errors. I'm not quite finished reading. What did you want to discuss?

 

[Coyote]

I suspect both Anti-Israeli Posters and Anti-Palestinian posters will not want to read or discuss this but it’s a really thoughtful, observant and respectful article..very human, worth a read.

A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers
A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers

It has some factual errors. I'm not quite finished reading. What did you want to discuss?

What factual errors? Is that all you got out of it?

 

[Shusha]

What factual errors? Is that all you got out of it?

Nothing I haven't heard before. From both sides. Was there something in particular you wanted to discuss?

 

[Shusha]

Beyond that there are many reasons for fear and distrust including loss of land and homes, violence, kids incarcerated as adults, etc. you are choosing to ignore it when you seem to imply Palestinians have no valid reasons to fear and hate.

The reasons are not the same and not equivalent.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I suspect both Anti-Israeli Posters and Anti-Palestinian posters will not want to read or discuss this but it’s a really thoughtful, observant and respectful article..very human, worth a read.

A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers
A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers

I posted it before. Thanks for posting it again.
Many Muslims work for Jewish settlers, by the way.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Don’t you think the Palestinians might fear the Israeli’s for much the same reasons?

There ARE no "same reasons". Where in the world are Jews demanding that no Arab be their presence?

Some are.

Beyond that there are many reasons for fear and distrust including loss of land and homes, violence, kids incarcerated as adults, etc. you are choosing to ignore it when you seem to imply Palestinians have no valid reasons to fear and hate.

Palestinians have valid reasons to fear and hate.

It is all in their daily education, in their textbooks, videos, imams, leaders.

Kindergarten kids photographed at Arafat’s grave holding Palestinian flags, a map of “Palestine” erasing Israel and a sign promoting right of return - All Media

Girl shows website she created to promote boycott of Israeli products - Videos

Girl’s poem on PA TV: “To war that will… crush the Zionist’s soul” - Videos

Kids play “Zionist jailers” executing Palestinian “heroic prisoners” in Fatah summer camp named after terrorist stabber - Camps named after terrorists
---------

Hamas camp teaches military training to children, including weapons

Unfortunately, you want to see that the same happens in Jewish education, summer camps and media when it does not.

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ These Jews have valid reasons to fear continuing to live in France, as others have had of living in Holland, Sweden, Norway, etc.....from Muslims and Christians in recent years. But they have never resorted to violence against others, any more than Jews before them have ever had in order to counter the fear and hatred of those two religions. So, they move, as Jews have always had to do.
Gratefully, now there is Israel. And the US and other countries to welcome them. ]

In last week’s cabinet meeting, Bennett highlighted the importance of immigration from France, and noted that a comprehensive survey of French Jewry in 2015 demonstrated that over 40% of French Jews – as many as 200,000 people – had said they were interested in varying degrees in immigrating to Israel.

Bennett working on plan to bring 200,000 French Jews to Israel

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ How can Muslims not be afraid and/or hateful towards Jews when they are made to listen to this kind of sermon, which is not much different than the kind of sermons given by Christians to this day, which have caused so many pogroms, the Inquisition and the Holocaust? Wouldn't this kind of talk put fear on many Muslims or Christians? ]


A Palestinian Arab cleric said in a sermon last Friday, which aired on the Palestinian Authority’s Palestine TV that “Allah had turned Jews into apes and pigs”.

The cleric, Sheikh Osama Al-Tibi, also said that the Jews have not changed throughout history despite Muslim attempts at peace

He added that the conflict between the Jews and Muslims will continue until Judgment Day, when the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, which will call to the Muslims to kill the Jews.

The sermon, made at the Taqwa Mosque in Al-Tira, near Ramallah, was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

“Allah cursed them because they violated their covenant, and ‘turned them into apes, pigs, and worshippers of false deities.’ These are the Jews, and this is Allah’s testimony about them,” claimed Al-Tibi, who added, “They always act with hypocrisy and they always violate [agreements]. They always fight and they always sow corruption. They always plot and conspire against humanity – not only against the Muslims.”

(full article online)

Watch: PA cleric says Allah 'turned Jews into apes and pigs'

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ With constant education of victimhood.... and heroism for fighting Israel, how can the Palestinians ever look forward to just wanting peaceful co-existence with Israel and Jews? ]

On 31st Anniversary, Hamas Compares Palestinian Terrorism to Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Pledges to Resist Israel ‘With All Means Possible’

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Odd, Christians come to Israel from Gaza and the PA areas, but this person says otherwise. Conspiracy Theorist, much? ]

Palestinian Business Tycoon Munib Al-Masri: Israel Has Driven Out Christians, Plans "Greater Israel" From the Nile to the Euphrates

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, I am well aware of the specific laws you are quoting. My argument is with the meaning you place and the extrapolation you make with respect to these specific laws.

The fact that nationals of the occupying power are not "protected persons" as written in GCIV does NOT mean they are not protected persons through other laws -- specifically IHL and the local laws of the nation under which they are nationals. You are trying to use this law to say that Jews are NEVER protected persons under any laws and therefore it is permissible to kill Jews. It would be like saying that since THIS cookie has no chocolate chips in it, NO cookie has chocolate chips in it. This violates not only rules of logic and law, but think on this: someone went out and looked for a law which gave them justification and permission to kill Jews. That is abhorrent.

We both know why you keep trying to make this a religious issue, which is nothing but mis-direction bullshit.

Every word of your last sentence above is wrong. But, I'm just going to focus on the killing Jews aspect of the argument. Any (perceived) right to "resist" does not abrogate normative rules of IHL. The right to "resist" does not mean that you can ignore all the established rules of engagement and warfare -- most especially the requirements not to target civilians, not to be indiscriminate in attacks, to attack only military targets and to contain attacks to rules of proportionality. Arabs are still bound by those rules.

Settler insurgents are not civilians. They're not even nice people. They are crazy, psychotic, white trash assholes, who deliberately murdered your own PM.

It is the responsibility of all governments and combatants in warfare to separate civilians from military targets. That applies to all. Civilian homes and people are NOT military targets.

Israeli nationals in the OPT are not civilians.

And again, it is vile to attempt to justify the murder of a specific group of peoples. There is a term for that, you know.

It's called the "laws of occupation". You cannot change the demographics of an area under occupation. Ergo, you can't move your white trash slum lords into an area you occupy.

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Billo_Really, et al,

This is just so wrong on so many levels, that it is almost criminal.



You should know better.

Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. That includes the Israeli civilians.

Once settlers move in to the OPT, they are no longer civilians.

Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (Protected Persons) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, "shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed." Arab Palestinians of the West Bank is guilty of the following acts, are subject to prosecution and sentencing under the penal legislation and/or the Articles 64 thru 75 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

◈ Espionage,
◈ Serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power,
◈ Intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,​

While you are correct, the Israeli citizens are "NOT" categorized as protected persons, they in the category of are all persons who are not members of armed forces or organized armed group = civilians.

Your statement is very close to advocating the violation of Customary and IHL.

Article 13 → Protection of the civilian population • Additional Protocol I to GCIV

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.​

Sorry, after 50+ years of brutal occupation, you sleep in the bed you made.

Settlers in Area "C" are there under the full Israeli civil and security control and AGREED upon by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO is considered the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit - Resolution (28 October 1974).

Whereas, the Gaza Palestinians are participating in a belligerent assault on the border with Israel.

That is total bullshit. Protesting their illegal and immoral incarceration at the hands of a foreign force, is not a belligerent assault. Israeli snipers deliberately shooting innocent women and children, first responders and the handicapped over 300 meters from Israel, is not a border assault.

The territory, under the governing body of HAMAS, has declared that:

"Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle."​

It is a much different set of circumstances.

Most Respectfully,
R

It's also legal. What the Israelis are doing, is not.