Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[Andylusion]

^^^^^^
Exactly. The Arabs refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, a civil war erupted, the Jews won.

Tissue?

Of course they refused to accept being evicted and having a European colony established. I don't think any people would support being colonized, do you?

Doesn't really matter does it? Israel is there to stay, and they can either die, or leave.

By the way, tons of Palestinians have left. I have met some here in Ohio.

 

[montelatici]

Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews. But, those Christians and Muslims there now aren't going anywhere. Christians and Muslims in the occupied territories and Israel are now more numerous than the Jews and the non-Jewish population growing faster than the Jewish population. The world will not stand by and allow Israel to murder millions of people (they do allow them to murder a few thousand civilians at a time but millions would not be tolerated) so a growing non-Jewish majority is the future and minorities that attempt to rule majorities don't last long-term.

 

[Dante]

Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews...

delusion on a grand scale. that's why there are so many whiney Palestinians alive today

if only they'd started loving their own children more than they hate Jews (golda)

 

[montelatici]

Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews...

delusion on a grand scale. that's why there are so many whiney Palestinians alive today

if only they'd started loving their own children more than they hate Jews (golda)

You claim that Palestinians were not ethnically cleansed and you spout Zionist propaganda. Kind of like the Zionist version of the Holocaust deniers.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This two page excerpt of a document (of an unknown date and document symbol), really does no appear to have a bearing on the question.

The UN documents clearly state that the Christians and Muslims owned 85% of the land. So, if it is now in the hands of Jews it is stolen.

(COMMENT)

This document does not seem to be a UN legal opinion. I have search the following with negative results.

I'm not saying it is not there, but it appears to be a UN Committee "Working Paper" or -/AC. .../- Ad hoc committee (there is no "AO" or "A0" sequence). Maybe you can help me out by giving by the Document Identification data.

From what I can gather and glean from this partial document, it does not mention the percentage of land ownership at all; not that it work make any difference. Land ownership is not the issue as it plays no roll in the application of sovereign governance. Theoretically, the land could be 100% Christians and Muslims owned and still be under the sovereignty of another non-Christians/Muslims power. A practical example of this is Jordan. Jordan is predominantly of Arab affiliation --- other than Hashemite Bedouin (of the Hejaz). Yet Jordan is a sovereign Hashemite Kingdom.

I don't believe it addresses the issue at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm... You won't like the answer.

Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.​

Why would you not use their international borders?

(COMMENT)

The UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 4 December 2012 --- Resolution 67/19 --- Status of Palestine in the United Nations, is very specific:

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;​

I am wondering why the Arab Palestinians did not reject this as it did all the other considerations offered of the last seven decades???

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

^^^^^^
Exactly. The Arabs refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, a civil war erupted, the Jews won.

Tissue?

Of course they refused to accept being evicted and having a European colony established. I don't think any people would support being colonized, do you?

Arabs are being colonized because the Jews settled in their ancient homeland which is what percentage of the Arab landmass?

you seriously need to get an education or -- get a refund for the one you have

what percentage of the Arab landmass?​

100% of those who became refugee.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm... You won't like the answer.

Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.​

Why would you not use their international borders?

(COMMENT)

The UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 4 December 2012 --- Resolution 67/19 --- Status of Palestine in the United Nations, is very specific:

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;​

I am wondering why the Arab Palestinians did not reject this as it did all the other considerations offered of the last seven decades???

Most Respectfully,
R

That is what Abbas asked for without consulting the people. Does Abbas have the authority to unilaterally change Palestine's borders without public approval?

The most consistent complaint of the PA/PLO is that they do not represent the people.

Now off of the smoke and back to the subject of Palestine's international borders.

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.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict​

This reiterates what I and many Palestinians have been saying for years. Israel has never legally acquired any territory.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

This two page excerpt of a document (of an unknown date and document symbol), really does no appear to have a bearing on the question.

The UN documents clearly state that the Christians and Muslims owned 85% of the land. So, if it is now in the hands of Jews it is stolen.

(COMMENT)

This document does not seem to be a UN legal opinion. I have search the following with negative results.

View attachment 39872
I'm not saying it is not there, but it appears to be a UN Committee "Working Paper" or -/AC. .../- Ad hoc committee (there is no "AO" or "A0" sequence). Maybe you can help me out by giving by the Document Identification data.

From what I can gather and glean from this partial document, it does not mention the percentage of land ownership at all; not that it work make any difference. Land ownership is not the issue as it plays no roll in the application of sovereign governance. Theoretically, the land could be 100% Christians and Muslims owned and still be under the sovereignty of another non-Christians/Muslims power. A practical example of this is Jordan. Jordan is predominantly of Arab affiliation --- other than Hashemite Bedouin (of the Hejaz). Yet Jordan is a sovereign Hashemite Kingdom.

I don't believe it addresses the issue at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

Here it is Rocco. You are confusing the legal opinion in
A/AC.14/32, which indeed does not discuss land ownership with the document below:



UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

Para. 164

164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land.



A 364 of 3 September 1947

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who is a refugee? What is the definition?

100% of those who became refugee.

(COMMENT)

Any Palestinian that lives in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank (now considered the 1988 modern State of Palestine) is not a "refugee."

Final Act of the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
CHAPTER I: General Provisions
Article 1 Definition of the Term “Refugee”

A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:

(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization; Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph 2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.​

B.(1) For the purposes of this Convention, the words “events occurring CHAPTER before 1 January 1951” in article 1, section A, shall be understood to mean either:

(a) “events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951”; or
(b) “events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951”, and each Contracting State shall make a declaration at the time of signature, ratification or accession, specifying which of these meanings it applies for the purpose of its obligations under this Convention.
​

(2) Any Contracting State which has adopted alternative

(a) may at any time extend its obligations by adopting alternative
(b) by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.​

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or
(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A(1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;
(6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because of the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence;​

Any Arab Palestinian who lived in the West Bank between April 11, 1950 and July 31, 1988, acquired a new nationality --- unanimously approved by Parliament (in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented) exercising the "right of self-determination" --- (Citizenship in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan), and enjoyed the protection of that new nationality (Jordanian). Any Arab Palestinian who resided in the Gaza Strip and West Bank after 15 November 1988 has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality as a citizen of the State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

There wasn't a Palestinian state nor was the land ruled by the Arabs. The Jews were emigrating to their ancient holy land. Are Catholics emigrating to Vatican city from all over the world or colonizing? Like I said the British and allies had decided it to be the Jewish homeland after defeating the a Ottomans, and Jews from all over the world were invited to join their brethren in land that has been holier to them than for all other religions. Also, a majority of Jews today in Israel are Jews who fled Muslim persecution and barbarism.

Besides all of this happened about a 90 years ago. Israel is here to stay, and now a thriving democratic state, getting stronger and more prosperous every day. All your whining, lying and propaganda aren't going to change a thing. I understand as a dedicated, invested anti Semite, it is hard for you to digest this. So keep posting your garbage if that makes you happy, you bum.

What does all that bullshit you wrote have to do with the fact that Israel was a European colonial enterprise. I am not an antisemite, in fact, people like you are the antisemites you are forcing an Algerian/Rhodesian solution for the long term where instead there could be a South African solution.

Your comparisons and claims are unsubstantiated and idiotic. Just because you claim something that doesn't mean it actually is.

Funny you're the one bitching about "propaganda" yet you repeat Islamist / Nazi propaganda about Israel being an "apartheid state" like an IslamoNazi parrot.

You already showed us that you are a pathetic Jew hater who subscribes to pre Vatican II medieval anti antisemitism.

 

[Roudy]

^^^^^^
Exactly. The Arabs refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, a civil war erupted, the Jews won.

Tissue?

Haven't seen a surrender yet, have you?

Groups of Arab nations attacked many times to destroy the Jewish state and it wasn't to create this mythical Palestine. They got their butts kicked by tiny Israel every time, even though the odds were highly in their favor. Keep up.

The war's not over yet.

How's it going? Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

^^^^^^
Exactly. The Arabs refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, a civil war erupted, the Jews won.

Tissue?

Of course they refused to accept being evicted and having a European colony established. I don't think any people would support being colonized, do you?

The Arab Muslims are the colonizers and invaders of the entire Middle East. They squatted on ancient Jewish lands. Time to face reality.

 

[Roudy]

Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews. But, those Christians and Muslims there now aren't going anywhere. Christians and Muslims in the occupied territories and Israel are now more numerous than the Jews and the non-Jewish population growing faster than the Jewish population. The world will not stand by and allow Israel to murder millions of people (they do allow them to murder a few thousand civilians at a time but millions would not be tolerated) so a growing non-Jewish majority is the future and minorities that attempt to rule majorities don't last long-term.

Blah blah blah. "The world" is now busy trying to figure out what to do about Arab Muslim ethnic cleansing, terrorism, intolerance, barbarism and savagery. What planet do you live on?

Just because you're a Jew hater obsessed with Jooooos, doesn't mean everybody is.

 

[montelatici]

There is nothing wrong with my comparisons, they are absolutely a propos. Your claiming they are not makes no difference. I am not the only one that judges Israel to be an Apartheid state. Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Tutu, the U.S. Secretary of State Kerry said as much but had to apologize. Mandela and Tutu ought to know what Apartheid is like, don't you think. Plus I look at the definition of Apartheid and I can't see how anyone does not believe that Israel does not commit the acts that define Apartheid at the expense of the Palestinians.

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1973 states in Article 1 that Apartheid includes acts

"committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines Racial discrimination as:


"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

 

[montelatici]

^^^^^^
Exactly. The Arabs refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, a civil war erupted, the Jews won.

Tissue?

Of course they refused to accept being evicted and having a European colony established. I don't think any people would support being colonized, do you?

The Arab Muslims are the colonizers and invaders of the entire Middle East. They squatted on ancient Jewish lands. Time to face reality.

No, the colonists are the Europeans that went from Europe and colonized Palestine. They even said they were planning to colonize Palestine. Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

 

[montelatici]

Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews. But, those Christians and Muslims there now aren't going anywhere. Christians and Muslims in the occupied territories and Israel are now more numerous than the Jews and the non-Jewish population growing faster than the Jewish population. The world will not stand by and allow Israel to murder millions of people (they do allow them to murder a few thousand civilians at a time but millions would not be tolerated) so a growing non-Jewish majority is the future and minorities that attempt to rule majorities don't last long-term.

Blah blah blah. "The world" is now busy trying to figure out what to do about Arab Muslim ethnic cleansing, terrorism, intolerance, barbarism and savagery. What planet do you live on?

Just because you're a Jew hater obsessed with Jooooos, doesn't mean everybody is.

I am not a Jew hater, but you are an Arab hater, that's clear.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I read this report, which was one of the UNSCOP Reports on which the Partition Plan Recommendation A/RES/181(II) was based upon. But my chief observation still holds.

• EXCERPT from A/RES/181(II): Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364) 1/ including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee,

Here it is Rocco. You are confusing the legal opinion in
A/AC.14/32, which indeed does not discuss land ownership with the document below:

• General Assembly A/364 3 September 1947

164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land.

A 364 of 3 September 1947

(COMMENT)

Two points need to be added to complete your hypothesis:

First:

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

AND

105. Nothing was said in the White Paper on the constitution of the independent State, beyond the general principle that it must enable Arabs and Jews to share in government in such a way that the essential interests of each were safeguarded. The colonial Secretary, when he subsequently appeared before the Permanent Mandates commission, indicated two possible means through which effect might be given to this principle in the future constitution. There might, he suggested, be a federal system with equal representation in the central institutions for an Arab province and a Jewish province. Or, if the State was constructed on a unitary and not a federal basis, the constitution might provide that, on matters of importance, no decision could be taken unless a majority of the Arab and a majority of the Jewish members of the legislature were in agreement.​

Second:

113. In February, 1940, the government promulgated land Transfers Regulations under which the country was divided into three zones.

• In the largest of these zones, all transfers of land to persons other than Palestinian Arabs were prohibited, except, where certain specific conditions obtain, with the permission of the High commissioner.
• In the second zone, Palestinian Arabs were forbidden to transfer their land except to another Palestinian Arab or with the specific approval of the High commissioner.
• No restrictions were placed upon the transfer of land in a third and smaller zone, including a considerable part of the coastal plain and all municipal areas. these Regulations gave effect to the land clauses of the 1939 White Paper. It is to be noted, however, that a similar Regulation had been drafted before that statement of policy was prepared with the object of replacing the earlier and defective legislation for the protection of cultivators.

In the final analysis, the goal of enabling both the Arabs and Jewish to share in the accomplishment of the essential interests where determined to be incompatible and impossible to achieve simultaneously. The Arabs, who could not be trusted to protect the Jewish National Home, thus a single-state solution with an Arab majority in power was untrustworthy and likely to corrupt the preservation and protection of the Jewish Culture. By the same token, the Jewish National Home, needed such autonomy and self-governance as to be able to defend itself against Arab invasion and takeover. Ultimately this set of dilemmas resulted in the adoption of the 181(II) Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

This two page excerpt of a document (of an unknown date and document symbol), really does no appear to have a bearing on the question.

The UN documents clearly state that the Christians and Muslims owned 85% of the land. So, if it is now in the hands of Jews it is stolen.

(COMMENT)

This document does not seem to be a UN legal opinion. I have search the following with negative results.

View attachment 39872
I'm not saying it is not there, but it appears to be a UN Committee "Working Paper" or -/AC. .../- Ad hoc committee (there is no "AO" or "A0" sequence). Maybe you can help me out by giving by the Document Identification data.

From what I can gather and glean from this partial document, it does not mention the percentage of land ownership at all; not that it work make any difference. Land ownership is not the issue as it plays no roll in the application of sovereign governance. Theoretically, the land could be 100% Christians and Muslims owned and still be under the sovereignty of another non-Christians/Muslims power. A practical example of this is Jordan. Jordan is predominantly of Arab affiliation --- other than Hashemite Bedouin (of the Hejaz). Yet Jordan is a sovereign Hashemite Kingdom.

I don't believe it addresses the issue at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

Here it is Rocco. You are confusing the legal opinion in
A/AC.14/32, which indeed does not discuss land ownership with the document below:



UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

Para. 164

164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land.



A 364 of 3 September 1947

Why do you quote UN documents if you think the British and UN had no right to declare Israeli statehood in 1848?

Taking ONE SENTENCE out of a 300 page document of a general report and correspondence is totally meaningless, DUFUS.

Here's some of what you left out:

Appraisal of the Arab case

163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.

166. The desire of the Arab people of Palestine to safeguard their national existence is a very natural desire. However, Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.

167. With regard to the promises and pledges made to the Arabs as inducement for their support of the Allies in the First World War, it is to be noted that apparently there is no unequivocal agreement as to whether Palestine was included within the territory pledged to independence by the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. In this connexion, since the question of interpretation was raised Great Britain has consistently denied that Palestine was among the territories to which independence was pledged.

175. The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now".

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

This two page excerpt of a document (of an unknown date and document symbol), really does no appear to have a bearing on the question.

The UN documents clearly state that the Christians and Muslims owned 85% of the land. So, if it is now in the hands of Jews it is stolen.

(COMMENT)

This document does not seem to be a UN legal opinion. I have search the following with negative results.

View attachment 39872
I'm not saying it is not there, but it appears to be a UN Committee "Working Paper" or -/AC. .../- Ad hoc committee (there is no "AO" or "A0" sequence). Maybe you can help me out by giving by the Document Identification data.

From what I can gather and glean from this partial document, it does not mention the percentage of land ownership at all; not that it work make any difference. Land ownership is not the issue as it plays no roll in the application of sovereign governance. Theoretically, the land could be 100% Christians and Muslims owned and still be under the sovereignty of another non-Christians/Muslims power. A practical example of this is Jordan. Jordan is predominantly of Arab affiliation --- other than Hashemite Bedouin (of the Hejaz). Yet Jordan is a sovereign Hashemite Kingdom.

I don't believe it addresses the issue at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

Like I said he posts irrelevant documents, and makes up his own interpretations.

In other words he has nothing but false propaganda.