Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[Coyote]

"Palestinians committed three terror attacks against Israeli security forces"

Isn't that military?

The security could be a watchman at a massage parlor. Why do Palestinians need to attack people in Jerusalem?

The same reason Israeli's attacked British military targets before they were granted Israel?

There was a shooting war then. Today these people are supposed to be wanting peace. Supposedly.

I'm not seeing any difference Hoss. These people want a nation - a homeland. Just like the Jews did.

They keep refusing a nation. Because they would have to recognize Israel if they accepted.

It's not that simple. I fully agree - they must recognize Israel. But Israel in turn, must recognize their right to a homeland. And you and I both know Netanyahu has no such intentions.

 

[toastman]

Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.

So produce the link little worm or squirm done your stinking hole.

You're such a dumbass! Are you actually saying the Nazis didn't blame the Jews?

Here's your link, punk-ass...

People frequently ask why the Jews were the target of the Holocaust or why the Holocaust happened. The first is an easy question to answer. Jews were the targets of the Holocaust because Hitler hated Jews and blamed them for all of the problems in the world. He especially blamed them for Germany's loss of World War I. Hitler told the German people that they could have won the first war, if Germany had not been "stabbed in the back" by the Jews and their conspirators.

Want more?

From a book on Anne Frank...

ur

It's hard to believe some dumbass would actually argue that the Nazis didn't blame the Jews, but you've proven to the world, you are that dumbass!

KEY CONCEPT: Everyone knew from the first that the Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's problems and they wanted the Jews to leave Germany.

You asked for one link, I gave you three.

Worm out...

So you're saying the Israelis blame the Palestinian for all the problems in the world ?

Do you realize how stupid your Nazi comparisons are? Get your head out of yo

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't actually say anything different than what was already enacted. You act like some other higher group wrote the Treaty. The very same people who were instrumental in the drafting of the Treaty of Sevres were the same as those that wrote the Treaty of Lausanne. Absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changed any aspect of the Palestine Order in Council or caused the change in the Citizenship Order of 1925.

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

Article 5:

The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6:

The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.​

The Avalon Project The Palestinian National Charter

You're welcome.

(COMMENT)

FIRST: In fact, the passage in the 1924 Treaty uses spme of the exact same language in the 1922 Order in Council, which came before. Why, because the very same interests wrote both. The Treaty of Lausanne is not the Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine. It is relative to Armenians and Kurds, but not the Palestinians.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

SECOND: The The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968, were not law of any sort and even if it were, it was written two decades too late (although it did make me smile). The Palestinian National Charter was written by the legislative body of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that elects the Executive Committee (PLO EC).

The Palestinian National Charter Language you cite is what the UNRWA CERI (Consolidate Enrollment Registration Instructions) are derivative of. The PLO, working for the UN in the RWA influenced CERI. That is why it does not match existing IHL.

Remember these are the same people that wrote, in the same document that:

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Commando (Feday'ee) action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.
• The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time,
• The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.
• The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization.

But as I said, none of this will make a difference in the final analysis. All the remainder of the region will want is power and money. And it is not likely that the Palestinians will be competitive there. And the Levant is a basin of potential wealth. And the Palestinians, the longer they procrastinate and behave in an obstructionist manner, the less likely they will be able to build a thriving and productive nation. No one, event the Arabs, in their right mind want another bunch of barbaric bloodthirsty radicals, jihadist, Islamic Resistance fighters, and fedayeen --- who think they have some special privilege for belligerents, running loose, unsupervised and unrestrained in the Levant; creating even more havoc than ISIS is already.

Most Respectfully,
R

The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.”[21] Art. 80 (1) – in connection with Art. 77, Par. 1 (a) – of the UN Charter explicitly states that, in regard to a mandated territory, the United Nations provisions on trusteeship must not be interpreted in a way that could “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples” under the regime of a mandate.

As far as the occupation of additional territories in excess of those allocated – though without sufficient authority – by the General Assembly in 1947 is concerned, the universally recognized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force applies. The general principle of law "ex injuria jus non oritur" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”

“The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

None of this changes the fact that the Treaty of Lausanne changed nothing for Palestine .. You keep posting the same lie over and over and over and over

The Treaty of Lausanne was not supposed to change anything. It merely reiterated customary international law.

Why are you so hot about it?

Let me rephrase. The Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do with Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have this entirely wrong again.

The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.”[21] Art. 80 (1) – in connection with Art. 77, Par. 1 (a) – of the UN Charter explicitly states that, in regard to a mandated territory, the United Nations provisions on trusteeship must not be interpreted in a way that could “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples” under the regime of a mandate.

As far as the occupation of additional territories in excess of those allocated – though without sufficient authority – by the General Assembly in 1947 is concerned, the universally recognized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force applies. The general principle of law "ex injuria jus non oritur" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”

“The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

(COMMENT)

Not that the principle applies anyway, but even if it did, a General Assembly Resolution cannot violate the Charter, because the General Assembly Resolution does not take the form of a requirement or action by force. It is a case in which the UN via the General Assembly Resolution made an "offer and acceptance;" under Security Council surveillance to take the necessary measures for implementation. It was not a case of "acquisition of territory by force."

• It offered the Opportunity for the Jewish to establish a Jewish State.
  • And the Jewish Agency had the opportunity to reject the acceptance to the offer without prejudice.
• It offered the Opportunity for the Arab to establish an Arab State.
  • And the Arabs had the opportunity to reject the acceptance to the offer without prejudice.

The regime and protocols of the mandate did not alter the status of the citizens of the territory to which the mandate applied. Neither the Arab or the Jewish population had responsibility for the government or any sovereignty issue.

Finally the concept of "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force" applies to the aggressor and NOT the defender. The external interference was a result of the assault by the Arab countries involved in the invasion. The Armistice between Lebanon and Syria puts the matter in stasis, until a formal peace arrangement is made. The Peace Treaties resolve any action pertaining to the permanent international borders between Israel and the adjacent states of Jordan and Egypt.

It is not the case that Israel is inside Palestine as is often alleged. Quite the contrary.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition Palestine. The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.

Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred.

The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have this entirely wrong again.

The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.”[21] Art. 80 (1) – in connection with Art. 77, Par. 1 (a) – of the UN Charter explicitly states that, in regard to a mandated territory, the United Nations provisions on trusteeship must not be interpreted in a way that could “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples” under the regime of a mandate.

As far as the occupation of additional territories in excess of those allocated – though without sufficient authority – by the General Assembly in 1947 is concerned, the universally recognized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force applies. The general principle of law "ex injuria jus non oritur" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”

“The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

(COMMENT)

Not that the principle applies anyway, but even if it did, a General Assembly Resolution cannot violate the Charter, because the General Assembly Resolution does not take the form of a requirement or action by force. It is a case in which the UN via the General Assembly Resolution made an "offer and acceptance;" under Security Council surveillance to take the necessary measures for implementation. It was not a case of "acquisition of territory by force."

• It offered the Opportunity for the Jewish to establish a Jewish State.
  • And the Jewish Agency had the opportunity to reject the acceptance to the offer without prejudice.
• It offered the Opportunity for the Arab to establish an Arab State.
  • And the Arabs had the opportunity to reject the acceptance to the offer without prejudice.

The regime and protocols of the mandate did not alter the status of the citizens of the territory to which the mandate applied. Neither the Arab or the Jewish population had responsibility for the government or any sovereignty issue.

Finally the concept of "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force" applies to the aggressor and NOT the defender. The external interference was a result of the assault by the Arab countries involved in the invasion. The Armistice between Lebanon and Syria puts the matter in stasis, until a formal peace arrangement is made. The Peace Treaties resolve any action pertaining to the permanent international borders between Israel and the adjacent states of Jordan and Egypt.

It is not the case that Israel is inside Palestine as is often alleged. Quite the contrary.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition Palestine. The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.

Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred.

The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.

The Palestinians ALSO agreed, just not in 1947, but in 1988.

Again with the land transfer crap ? Which part of 'land transfer has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING' don't you understand ??

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have this entirely wrong again.

The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.”[21] Art. 80 (1) – in connection with Art. 77, Par. 1 (a) – of the UN Charter explicitly states that, in regard to a mandated territory, the United Nations provisions on trusteeship must not be interpreted in a way that could “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples” under the regime of a mandate.

As far as the occupation of additional territories in excess of those allocated – though without sufficient authority – by the General Assembly in 1947 is concerned, the universally recognized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force applies. The general principle of law "ex injuria jus non oritur" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”

“The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

(COMMENT)

Not that the principle applies anyway, but even if it did, a General Assembly Resolution cannot violate the Charter, because the General Assembly Resolution does not take the form of a requirement or action by force. It is a case in which the UN via the General Assembly Resolution made an "offer and acceptance;" under Security Council surveillance to take the necessary measures for implementation. It was not a case of "acquisition of territory by force."

• It offered the Opportunity for the Jewish to establish a Jewish State.
  • And the Jewish Agency had the opportunity to reject the acceptance to the offer without prejudice.
• It offered the Opportunity for the Arab to establish an Arab State.
  • And the Arabs had the opportunity to reject the acceptance to the offer without prejudice.

The regime and protocols of the mandate did not alter the status of the citizens of the territory to which the mandate applied. Neither the Arab or the Jewish population had responsibility for the government or any sovereignty issue.

Finally the concept of "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force" applies to the aggressor and NOT the defender. The external interference was a result of the assault by the Arab countries involved in the invasion. The Armistice between Lebanon and Syria puts the matter in stasis, until a formal peace arrangement is made. The Peace Treaties resolve any action pertaining to the permanent international borders between Israel and the adjacent states of Jordan and Egypt.

It is not the case that Israel is inside Palestine as is often alleged. Quite the contrary.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition Palestine. The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.

Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred.

The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.

What the hell does this video prove ?

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

When investigating a crime, all the basic interrogatives are important. But your instinct is somewhat correct; maybe not the first or main concern.

And the exact same event can be evaluated differently depending upon the vantage of the jurisdiction. And, the scope and nature of terrorism events is constantly evolving; and growing --- and now includes cyber-terrorism and financial terrorism.

"International Terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violates International Humanitarian, Customary or Criminal Law;
• Appear to be intended to:
  • (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  • (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
  • (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occurs primarily transcending international boundaries;

"Terrorist acts" mean intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or international organization and which are defined as an offense under national law. These include:

• Attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
• Attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
• Kidnapping or hostage taking;
• Causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility; • seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
• Manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons,
• Participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group.​

In order for these acts to constitute terrorist acts, they must be carried out with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or unduly compelling a Government or an international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization.

The generally accepted (totally independent) laws or criteria pertaining to threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts are found in the UN Security Council List of Resolutions. In this regard the conduct of activities prohibited by the Security Council is a prima facie case for terrorism by a terrorist.

It seems to me that the main distinction made between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" is the choice of targets. I don't agree with targeting civilians especially children.

(COMMENT)

Most terrorist organization of an international complexion, identify or associate themselves with the cover of a nationalist for democracy or freedom fighting against a major power. However, "freedom fighters" do not have a depraved indifference to human life and their operations and actions are:

• Not directed against the helpless or infirm.
• Not directed against persons not a member of the opposing force.
• Not directed against civilians IAW Article 50 of Additional Protocol I.
• Not “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.” Rule 97 Customary Law

But this is clearly targeting military members - security forces. In that - what is the difference between what the Palestinians are doing and what the Israeli's did?

(COMMENT)

Security Forces is too broad a term. For instance "Police Officers" (Law Enforcement Officers) are generally considered "civilians." However, the use of military forces to perform defense and security functions is a "military" activity. But again, Article 68 of the Geneva Convention comes into play.

Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or involves espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, is punishable under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (IHL).

A good investigation tries to assess each event on it own merit (case-by-case). In fact, it would be a rare case in the History of Man when a belligerent action that has lasted 70 years, did not include questionable activity by each of the parties to the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

When investigating a crime, all the basic interrogatives are important. But your instinct is somewhat correct; maybe not the first or main concern.

And the exact same event can be evaluated differently depending upon the vantage of the jurisdiction. And, the scope and nature of terrorism events is constantly evolving; and growing --- and now includes cyber-terrorism and financial terrorism.

"International Terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violates International Humanitarian, Customary or Criminal Law;
• Appear to be intended to:
  • (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  • (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
  • (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occurs primarily transcending international boundaries;

"Terrorist acts" mean intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or international organization and which are defined as an offense under national law. These include:

• Attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
• Attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
• Kidnapping or hostage taking;
• Causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility; • seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
• Manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons,
• Participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group.​

In order for these acts to constitute terrorist acts, they must be carried out with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or unduly compelling a Government or an international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization.

The generally accepted (totally independent) laws or criteria pertaining to threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts are found in the UN Security Council List of Resolutions. In this regard the conduct of activities prohibited by the Security Council is a prima facie case for terrorism by a terrorist.

It seems to me that the main distinction made between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" is the choice of targets. I don't agree with targeting civilians especially children.

(COMMENT)

Most terrorist organization of an international complexion, identify or associate themselves with the cover of a nationalist for democracy or freedom fighting against a major power. However, "freedom fighters" do not have a depraved indifference to human life and their operations and actions are:

• Not directed against the helpless or infirm.
• Not directed against persons not a member of the opposing force.
• Not directed against civilians IAW Article 50 of Additional Protocol I.
• Not “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.” Rule 97 Customary Law

But this is clearly targeting military members - security forces. In that - what is the difference between what the Palestinians are doing and what the Israeli's did?

(COMMENT)

Security Forces is too broad a term. For instance "Police Officers" (Law Enforcement Officers) are generally considered "civilians." However, the use of military forces to perform defense and security functions is a "military" activity. But again, Article 68 of the Geneva Convention comes into play.

Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or involves espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, is punishable under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (IHL).

A good investigation tries to assess each event on it own merit (case-by-case). In fact, it would be a rare case in the History of Man when a belligerent action that has lasted 70 years, did not include questionable activity by each of the parties to the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

In fact, it would be a rare case in the History of Man when a belligerent action that has lasted 70 years, did not include questionable activity by each of the parties to the conflict.​

Like a settler colonial occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are lost.

What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition Palestine. The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.

(COMMENT)

There was never a beginning to the story:

Wrong!!! It is the Partition Plan for the territory to which the Mandate applied (the official definition of Palestine - found in the Palestine order in Council).
Yes. If they have a territory (or adopted to accept the GA/RES/181 offer), they can use the "right of territorial integrity." BUT, when did the Palestine Government (the Mandatory)
recognize any plot or allocation of territory that was unique to the Arab Palestinian. That did not happen until 1988.
And WRONG! The Palestinian had no land under their sovereign control.

Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred. The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.

(COMMENT)

Land transfers are a civil real-estate matter. It has nothing to do which sovereign integrity. No land was ever transferred to Israel. The Jewish Agency exercised the "right of self-determination" in accordance with the instructions and recommendation set forth by the General Assembly and implemented by the Security Council through the UN Palestine Commission; after completing the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."

No land was transferred. That is not how it was done for any of the Mandates.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are lost.

What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition Palestine. The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.

(COMMENT)

There was never a beginning to the story:

Wrong!!! It is the Partition Plan for the territory to which the Mandate applied (the official definition of Palestine - found in the Palestine order in Council).
Yes. If they have a territory (or adopted to accept the GA/RES/181 offer), they can use the "right of territorial integrity." BUT, when did the Palestine Government (the Mandatory)
recognize any plot or allocation of territory that was unique to the Arab Palestinian. That did not happen until 1988.
And WRONG! The Palestinian had no land under their sovereign control.

Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred. The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.

(COMMENT)

Land transfers are a civil real-estate matter. It has nothing to do which sovereign integrity. No land was ever transferred to Israel. The Jewish Agency exercised the "right of self-determination" in accordance with the instructions and recommendation set forth by the General Assembly and implemented by the Security Council through the UN Palestine Commission; after completing the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."

No land was transferred. That is not how it was done for any of the Mandates.

Most Respectfully,
R

Better stay on your guard, Rocco, or Tinmore will slip one by you and get all that land back.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this colonialism allegation.

Like a settler colonial occupation.

(COMMENT)

Well, that needs to be litigated.

• OSLO II established Areas "A" --- "B" --- and "C".
• OLSO II gave Israel total jurisdiction over Area "C"...
• Settlements are in Area "C"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this colonialism allegation.

Like a settler colonial occupation.

(COMMENT)

Well, that needs to be litigated.

• OSLO II established Areas "A" --- "B" --- and "C".
• OLSO II gave Israel total jurisdiction over Area "C"...
• Settlements are in Area "C"

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo was just an attempt to legalize criminal activity. Few people still believe in it. It is not relevant to anything I post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are lost.

What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition Palestine. The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.

(COMMENT)

There was never a beginning to the story:

Wrong!!! It is the Partition Plan for the territory to which the Mandate applied (the official definition of Palestine - found in the Palestine order in Council).
Yes. If they have a territory (or adopted to accept the GA/RES/181 offer), they can use the "right of territorial integrity." BUT, when did the Palestine Government (the Mandatory)
recognize any plot or allocation of territory that was unique to the Arab Palestinian. That did not happen until 1988.
And WRONG! The Palestinian had no land under their sovereign control.

Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred. The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.

(COMMENT)

Land transfers are a civil real-estate matter. It has nothing to do which sovereign integrity. No land was ever transferred to Israel. The Jewish Agency exercised the "right of self-determination" in accordance with the instructions and recommendation set forth by the General Assembly and implemented by the Security Council through the UN Palestine Commission; after completing the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."

No land was transferred. That is not how it was done for any of the Mandates.

Most Respectfully,
R

Land transfers are a civil real-estate matter. It has nothing to do which sovereign integrity.​

You are just trying to confuse people. You know your comment is way off base.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you are not listening.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.

Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.

Most Respectfully,
R

sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

That does not look correct.

...before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel

The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation. But it wasn’t the first illegitimate occupation.

That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.

Occupation of Palestine started in 1948

...and Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in 1948 occupied Palestine...

1948 Internally Displaced Persons Palestinians

The 69-page book explores the emergence of these parties and their programs and their influence in the political life of the Palestinians in the 1948 occupied territories.

Al-Zaytouna Centre - Information Report 25 Arab Parties in 1948 Occupied Palestine in Israel

"That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel. Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day."

In your dreams moron. Even the Palestinians recognize that territory as being Israel's. What the **** is wrong with you? You have got to be the most unaware poster concerning this conflict.

The Palestinians or the US paid oligarchs in Ramallah?

Define Palestinian using contemporary evidence of who was named as Palestinians ?

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

Article 5:

The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6:

The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.​

The Avalon Project The Palestinian National Charter

You're welcome.

So what about those arab muslims that were not Turkish subjects but illegal immigrants and not habitually resident but itinerant farm workers.

And what date do the arab muslims put down as the start of the Zionist invasion ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you're in part correct. Now you are "quibbling" (argue or raise objections about a trivial matter) with words --- as opposed to making a valid and worthy contribution. Let's lay this to rest once and for all. This is one of those issues which the Palestinians believe they can force a change over though force and active belligerence. It is at least one of the attitudes that has prevented the Arab Palestinian to see a productive way though negotiations for a lasting peace.

What are the Palestinians trying to change?

I do question your description of the Mandate as "temporary." I believe the better term to apply is "indefinite" (meaning: lasting for an undetermined period or an unstated time). There was Article 22 criteria to be met that the Palestinians declined to engage. Palestine is not capable of standing on its own even today, being parasitic on the donor nations.

When the people could stand alone was a goal oriented termination date.

Of course the British, with its military force, prevented that from happening.

Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.

It had no land or borders.

(COMMENT)

From 1922 - 1946: Palestine the PLACE was mutually delineated by the Council, the ALLIED POWERS, and the Mandatory as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, hereinafter described as "Palestine."

Afterwards and until 1948, Palestine was delineated as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, less the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

After 1948, Palestine was delineated as the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied, less the combined territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and that territory under the sovereign control of Israel. After 15 May 1948 and until 1988, Palestine was defined as a legal entity, not self-governing; with the United Nations Commission for Palestine as the successor for Government of Palestine.

After November 1988, Palestine was re-defined as the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; --- as recognized by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated --- as acknowledged by the UN.

NOTE: The West Bank was NOT part of Palestine, either delineated as part of the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied --- or --- as a component of the territory occupied since 1967. During the period April 1950 until July 1988 (and the Disengagement), the West Bank was a sovereign to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The West Bank was annexed by the authority of the West Bank Palestinian exercising their right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

What territory were they talking about when according to you there was none.

The granting of the Jews a national home on 22% OF PALESTINE.

And the arab muslims constantly show they don't have what it takes to stand alone.

You keep saying that yet refuse to show any evidence of this being the case. The British could only work within the framework of the mandate, and could not make such decisions on their own

Once again you mix Mandates to suit your POV, but this would mean that Palestine has no borders.

 

[Phoenall]

Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.

So produce the link little worm or squirm done your stinking hole.

You're such a dumbass! Are you actually saying the Nazis didn't blame the Jews?

Here's your link, punk-ass...

People frequently ask why the Jews were the target of the Holocaust or why the Holocaust happened. The first is an easy question to answer. Jews were the targets of the Holocaust because Hitler hated Jews and blamed them for all of the problems in the world. He especially blamed them for Germany's loss of World War I. Hitler told the German people that they could have won the first war, if Germany had not been "stabbed in the back" by the Jews and their conspirators.

Want more?

From a book on Anne Frank...



It's hard to believe some dumbass would actually argue that the Nazis didn't blame the Jews, but you've proven to the world, you are that dumbass!

KEY CONCEPT: Everyone knew from the first that the Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's problems and they wanted the Jews to leave Germany.

You asked for one link, I gave you three.

Worm out...

Not what you claimed dildo, so try again. This time go back to your original post and see that you stated the Germans blamed the Jews for all the problems in Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this colonialism allegation.

Like a settler colonial occupation.

(COMMENT)

Well, that needs to be litigated.

• OSLO II established Areas "A" --- "B" --- and "C".
• OLSO II gave Israel total jurisdiction over Area "C"...
• Settlements are in Area "C"

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo was just an attempt to legalize criminal activity. Few people still believe in it. It is not relevant to anything I post.

Unless it supports your POV and mood at the time.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are lost.

What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition Palestine. The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.

(COMMENT)

There was never a beginning to the story:

Wrong!!! It is the Partition Plan for the territory to which the Mandate applied (the official definition of Palestine - found in the Palestine order in Council).
Yes. If they have a territory (or adopted to accept the GA/RES/181 offer), they can use the "right of territorial integrity." BUT, when did the Palestine Government (the Mandatory)
recognize any plot or allocation of territory that was unique to the Arab Palestinian. That did not happen until 1988.
And WRONG! The Palestinian had no land under their sovereign control.

Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred. The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.

(COMMENT)

Land transfers are a civil real-estate matter. It has nothing to do which sovereign integrity. No land was ever transferred to Israel. The Jewish Agency exercised the "right of self-determination" in accordance with the instructions and recommendation set forth by the General Assembly and implemented by the Security Council through the UN Palestine Commission; after completing the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."

No land was transferred. That is not how it was done for any of the Mandates.

Most Respectfully,
R

Land transfers are a civil real-estate matter. It has nothing to do which sovereign integrity.​

You are just trying to confuse people. You know your comment is way off base.

NOPE just that you cant understand it

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you are not listening.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine (defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied) is pre-1945. The State of Palestine (defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988) is an entirely different place and time. The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.

Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity. Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want. I have that right and you have that right. It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right. Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015). Why do you and I have the right, but not the money. Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet. But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it. The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.

Most Respectfully,
R

Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.

You have that backwards.

Palestine has international borders.

Israel is defined by armistice lines.

Then you base the rest of your post of false premise.

No, YOU have that wrong. Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. That's just a fact. There's no going around that.

"Then you base the rest of your post of false premise"
This is what you post when you have no rebuttal. What exactly did he post that was based on false premise?

Israel claims borders on Palestinian land.

Interesting legal concept.

Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.

And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation

 

[Phoenall]

Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.

So produce the link little worm or squirm done your stinking hole.

You're such a dumbass! Are you actually saying the Nazis didn't blame the Jews?

Here's your link, punk-ass...

People frequently ask why the Jews were the target of the Holocaust or why the Holocaust happened. The first is an easy question to answer. Jews were the targets of the Holocaust because Hitler hated Jews and blamed them for all of the problems in the world. He especially blamed them for Germany's loss of World War I. Hitler told the German people that they could have won the first war, if Germany had not been "stabbed in the back" by the Jews and their conspirators.

Want more?

From a book on Anne Frank...

ur

It's hard to believe some dumbass would actually argue that the Nazis didn't blame the Jews, but you've proven to the world, you are that dumbass!

KEY CONCEPT: Everyone knew from the first that the Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's problems and they wanted the Jews to leave Germany.

You asked for one link, I gave you three.

Worm out...

So you're saying the Israelis blame the Palestinian for all the problems in the world ?

Do you realize how stupid your Nazi comparisons are? Get your head out of yo

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't actually say anything different than what was already enacted. You act like some other higher group wrote the Treaty. The very same people who were instrumental in the drafting of the Treaty of Sevres were the same as those that wrote the Treaty of Lausanne. Absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changed any aspect of the Palestine Order in Council or caused the change in the Citizenship Order of 1925.

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

Article 5:

The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6:

The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.​

The Avalon Project The Palestinian National Charter

You're welcome.

(COMMENT)

FIRST: In fact, the passage in the 1924 Treaty uses spme of the exact same language in the 1922 Order in Council, which came before. Why, because the very same interests wrote both. The Treaty of Lausanne is not the Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine. It is relative to Armenians and Kurds, but not the Palestinians.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

SECOND: The The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968, were not law of any sort and even if it were, it was written two decades too late (although it did make me smile). The Palestinian National Charter was written by the legislative body of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that elects the Executive Committee (PLO EC).

The Palestinian National Charter Language you cite is what the UNRWA CERI (Consolidate Enrollment Registration Instructions) are derivative of. The PLO, working for the UN in the RWA influenced CERI. That is why it does not match existing IHL.

Remember these are the same people that wrote, in the same document that:

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Commando (Feday'ee) action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.
• The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time,
• The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.
• The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization.

But as I said, none of this will make a difference in the final analysis. All the remainder of the region will want is power and money. And it is not likely that the Palestinians will be competitive there. And the Levant is a basin of potential wealth. And the Palestinians, the longer they procrastinate and behave in an obstructionist manner, the less likely they will be able to build a thriving and productive nation. No one, event the Arabs, in their right mind want another bunch of barbaric bloodthirsty radicals, jihadist, Islamic Resistance fighters, and fedayeen --- who think they have some special privilege for belligerents, running loose, unsupervised and unrestrained in the Levant; creating even more havoc than ISIS is already.

Most Respectfully,
R

The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.”[21] Art. 80 (1) – in connection with Art. 77, Par. 1 (a) – of the UN Charter explicitly states that, in regard to a mandated territory, the United Nations provisions on trusteeship must not be interpreted in a way that could “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples” under the regime of a mandate.

As far as the occupation of additional territories in excess of those allocated – though without sufficient authority – by the General Assembly in 1947 is concerned, the universally recognized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force applies. The general principle of law "ex injuria jus non oritur" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”

“The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

None of this changes the fact that the Treaty of Lausanne changed nothing for Palestine .. You keep posting the same lie over and over and over and over

The Treaty of Lausanne was not supposed to change anything. It merely reiterated customary international law.

Why are you so hot about it?

Because it does not say what you imply does it

 

[Phoenall]

Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.

So produce the link little worm or squirm done your stinking hole.

You're such a dumbass! Are you actually saying the Nazis didn't blame the Jews?

Here's your link, punk-ass...

People frequently ask why the Jews were the target of the Holocaust or why the Holocaust happened. The first is an easy question to answer. Jews were the targets of the Holocaust because Hitler hated Jews and blamed them for all of the problems in the world. He especially blamed them for Germany's loss of World War I. Hitler told the German people that they could have won the first war, if Germany had not been "stabbed in the back" by the Jews and their conspirators.

Want more?

From a book on Anne Frank...

ur

It's hard to believe some dumbass would actually argue that the Nazis didn't blame the Jews, but you've proven to the world, you are that dumbass!

KEY CONCEPT: Everyone knew from the first that the Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's problems and they wanted the Jews to leave Germany.

You asked for one link, I gave you three.

Worm out...

So you're saying the Israelis blame the Palestinian for all the problems in the world ?

Do you realize how stupid your Nazi comparisons are? Get your head out of yo

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't actually say anything different than what was already enacted. You act like some other higher group wrote the Treaty. The very same people who were instrumental in the drafting of the Treaty of Sevres were the same as those that wrote the Treaty of Lausanne. Absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changed any aspect of the Palestine Order in Council or caused the change in the Citizenship Order of 1925.

(COMMENT)

FIRST: In fact, the passage in the 1924 Treaty uses spme of the exact same language in the 1922 Order in Council, which came before. Why, because the very same interests wrote both. The Treaty of Lausanne is not the Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine. It is relative to Armenians and Kurds, but not the Palestinians.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

SECOND: The The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968, were not law of any sort and even if it were, it was written two decades too late (although it did make me smile). The Palestinian National Charter was written by the legislative body of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that elects the Executive Committee (PLO EC).

The Palestinian National Charter Language you cite is what the UNRWA CERI (Consolidate Enrollment Registration Instructions) are derivative of. The PLO, working for the UN in the RWA influenced CERI. That is why it does not match existing IHL.

Remember these are the same people that wrote, in the same document that:

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Commando (Feday'ee) action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.
• The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time,
• The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.
• The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization.

But as I said, none of this will make a difference in the final analysis. All the remainder of the region will want is power and money. And it is not likely that the Palestinians will be competitive there. And the Levant is a basin of potential wealth. And the Palestinians, the longer they procrastinate and behave in an obstructionist manner, the less likely they will be able to build a thriving and productive nation. No one, event the Arabs, in their right mind want another bunch of barbaric bloodthirsty radicals, jihadist, Islamic Resistance fighters, and fedayeen --- who think they have some special privilege for belligerents, running loose, unsupervised and unrestrained in the Levant; creating even more havoc than ISIS is already.

Most Respectfully,
R

The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.”[21] Art. 80 (1) – in connection with Art. 77, Par. 1 (a) – of the UN Charter explicitly states that, in regard to a mandated territory, the United Nations provisions on trusteeship must not be interpreted in a way that could “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples” under the regime of a mandate.

As far as the occupation of additional territories in excess of those allocated – though without sufficient authority – by the General Assembly in 1947 is concerned, the universally recognized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force applies. The general principle of law "ex injuria jus non oritur" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”

“The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

None of this changes the fact that the Treaty of Lausanne changed nothing for Palestine .. You keep posting the same lie over and over and over and over

The Treaty of Lausanne was not supposed to change anything. It merely reiterated customary international law.

Why are you so hot about it?

Hey, Tinmore. That's old news about the Palestinians defending themselves. Here's the new way for them to defend. Looks like things are building up to another ass whupping in Gaza. They must want to hold some more victory parades.


In what may be the beginning of a new wave of terror against Jews, Palestinian terrorists carried out three attacks over the weekend.

By: Aryeh Savir, World Israel News

Mayor Barkat holds the hand of one of the wounded officers as he is evacuated form the scene of the attack. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Palestinians committed three terror attacks against Israeli security forces in the Jerusalem vicinity over the weekend, just a day after the country celebrated Independence Day.

In the most severe incident, a Palestinian drove his car into a group of police officers on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, moderately wounding a policewoman and lightly wounding two others. The police opened fire on the assailant, but he managed to flee. They launched a manhunt, during which the car used in the attack was recovered, and later the terrorist himself was caught.

The three wounded officers were evacuated to Shaare Zedek hospital in Jerusalem.

Arabs began rioting in the area after the attack, and the unrest spread to other neighborhoods in the capital. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat was on his way to the scene of the attack when Arabs pelted rocks at his car, which was lightly damaged

Jerusalem area rocked by three terror attacks over weekend

"Palestinians committed three terror attacks against Israeli security forces"


It sounds like they are hitting military targets.

And Israel will strike back at military, terrorist and militia targets. It is now up to hamas to get the civilians away from such targets